Microsoft/Novell

[Scott Elcomb]

On 11/8/06, ted leslie <tleslie-RBVUpeUoHUc at public.gmane.org> wrote:
[...]
> Nothing that is quick straight forward engineering should be patentable.

Agreed.

> But the Patent office can't be expected to dive in deep on each submission,

No?  Then what is the Patent Office's function?

> The MS patent was larger then the other 11 put together. It doesn't
> apply to mine, I know that, but I have to understand their shit, to be
> able to defend mine :(

Again I have to agree - a most unfortunate truth that won't go away
any time soon...  without a fight.  By "supporting" software patents
(by proxy; by applying for them) the problem will not get any better.
Again, this is my opinion and no offence is intended.  I just see it
as increasing the amount of work required to fix the real problems.
[Like Patent Offices actually looking at and validating patents prior
to awarding them.  Running keyword searches and asking for applicants
to refute potential infringement might be efficient (in the temporal
sense) but can hardly be considered a robust form of research.]

>From a business perspective, I see the appeal of software patents.  As
a life-long student of the information the world has to offer, I see
them in a completely different light.

Take care - and best of luck with your endeavours.

-- 
Scott Elcomb
http://atomos.sourceforge.net/
http://search.cpan.org/~selcomb/SAL-3.03/
http://psema4.googlepages.com/

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

  - Benjamin Franklin
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists