|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 03 2013 @ 12:04 PM EDT |
Will not happen: The 'big boys' will rapidly roll out
'covenants not to sue', and dump the entire patent nuclear
arsenal on anyone brave or foolish enough to enter the market
with a new idea. That is: except of course when channeled
through the 30% 'for us' tax of the windows / apple / xxx
app-shop/store. And any disruptive new technology will get
the Netscape treatment. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: designerfx on Monday, June 03 2013 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
that approach - the "let them go crazy" - haven't you seen
what damage has *already* been done with that? It doesn't just
"Reset" when it gets bad enough. It continues to get worse,
indefinitely. It would expand to corporations seizing private
citizens' items on assumption of patent, probably.
baaaaaaad idea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 04:10 AM EDT |
The outrageous court decisions occur when the court does not observe the
law.
The Supreme Court said it in Bilski and now this amicus brief
repeats the message:
It is a basic canon of statutory
interpretation that courts must endeavor to give all words in a statute
appropriate meaning. If Congress has decided that computer programs are
copyrightable, but processes and methods they embody are not, then it is
incumbent on courts to determine which processes and methods embodied in
programs are outside the scope of copyright
protection.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
