Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!seismo!uunet!timbuk!sxb From: sxb@sequoia.cray.com (Stephen Behling) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: AT&T Claims patent on part of MIT's X11 server. Message-ID: <174251.18876@timbuk.cray.com> Date: 1 Mar 91 00:30:44 GMT References: <9102231551.AA01386@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> <1991Feb25.163318.14659@dsl.pitt.edu> Reply-To: sxb@sequoia.cray.com (Stephen Behling) Organization: Cray Research, Inc. Lines: 26 |> >and perhaps seen the application. It might be helpful if one of the |> >consortium leader-types could say whether they have seen the patent |> >and think the claim is bogus, if they think we're doomed, or whatever. |> >Even if bizarre legal doings prevent this, it would still be helpful |> >to hear something. |> |> I'm neither a guru nor a spokesperson for anyone in the consortium |> but this claim seems like the workings of some wet-behind-the-ears |> law school graduate just hired by ATT. How about somebody applying for a patent on a certain "Method to Argue a Legal Brief"? Then any lawyer trying the same argument/technique would be subject to a lawsuit. This is a recursive tight loop, so pretty soon all the lawyers in the country will be tied up in lawsuits with each other--and we would all be better off. How about an AT&T tight loop---if you find two people with automatic phone forwarding that would simultaneously forward to each other.... Patent no. 123456789 pending for the above sarcasm.... Opinions are mine......obviously.