home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6857 misc.int-property:1408 alt.suit.att-bsdi:604 comp.unix.bsd:8608
- Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!psinntp!psinntp!ficc!peter
- From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
- Subject: Re: Interface monopolies
- Message-ID: <id.9JSU.7L6@ferranti.com>
- Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
- References: <id.D9PU._Z1@ferranti.com> <JgqTTB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:47:50 GMT
- Lines: 17
-
- In article <R0ZPTB3w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery):
- > guidance. What I'm saying is that if you don't have a design patent on
- > your interface, you should have no standing to defend it.
-
- I responded that existing practice *outside* computer software says otherwise.
-
- In article <JgqTTB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
- > Design patents exist so that the utility of a form or formalism can be
- > owned and defended. Much that is copyrighted should be patented instead.
-
- OK, but prior art (in another sense) says that this isn't the case. How do
- we get there from here?
- --
- % Peter da Silva % 77487-5012 % +1 713 274 5180 %
- true(<<VV$@\\$'&O 9$O%'$LT$&$"V6"$&$<4$?'&$ #I&&?$=$<<@)24 24 scale 3 21 moveto
- {dup 36 eq{pop not}{dup 7 and 4 sub exch 56 and 8 div 4 sub 2 index{rlineto}{
- rmoveto}ifelse}ifelse}forall stroke pop showpage % Har du kramat din varg idag?
-