Microsoft Patents 'IsNot'
Jeff Shannon
jeff at ccvcorp.com
Fri Nov 19 16:48:20 EST 2004
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Fri Nov 19 16:48:20 EST 2004
- Previous message (by thread): Microsoft Patents 'IsNot'
- Next message (by thread): Microsoft Patents 'IsNot'
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Peter Maas wrote: > Isnot is semantically equivalent to the inequality operator which is > some hundred years old. I doubt that this can be an approved patent, > even under the liberal patent US laws. Maybe it's not a technically *valid* patent, but that doesn't mean it can't be approved. The US patent system has become appallingly lazy about checking for things like prior art and obviousness. (After all, we're talking about the system that approved a patent on "one-click purchasing"....) The sad thing about this is that these patents can be challenged in courts... but only if you can afford the legal budget necessary. And big corporations can afford to defend these patents, regardless of their legal viability, well enough to prevent all but the most determined (and well-heeled) challengers from actually getting a judgement on the actual merits of the case. Jeff Shannon Technician/Programmer Credit International
- Previous message (by thread): Microsoft Patents 'IsNot'
- Next message (by thread): Microsoft Patents 'IsNot'
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list