Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cbmvax!amix!vanth!jms From: jms@vanth.UUCP (Jim Shaffer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: AT&T using patent to go after people using X Message-ID: Date: 23 Feb 91 23:20:05 GMT References: <1991Feb22.090412.28321@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Organization: The Search For Terrestrial Intelligence Lines: 27 In article <1991Feb22.090412.28321@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) writes: > >Seems like this `back store' patent would also cover some aspects >of intuition. Jordan even wonders about other window systems that >use `back store'. Anyone care to commment? I remember hearing something about this a few months ago (probably in alt.folklore.computers) and thinking "Nah, they wouldn't *really* do that, would they? It's just too incredibly brain-damaged." Live and learn, I guess. Just for the record, I think that there are a lot of things that are just TOO DAMN SIMPLE to deserve a patent, and I'm appalled that someone would have the audacity to even *apply* for a patent on such a thing, let alone that it would actually be granted! I think someone also mentioned at the time that implementing a cursor by XOR-ing was patented by someone, though I don't know who. See previous paragraph for this one, too. [My own opinions above. This node is owned and operated by myself.] -- * From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | "Glittering prizes and Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | endless compromises 37 Brook Street | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | shatter the illusion of Montgomery, PA 17752 | (CompuServe as a last resort)| integrity!" (Rush)