Xref: utzoo comp.misc:11729 gnu.misc.discuss:2682
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!stanford.edu!apple!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!DIALix!bernie
From: bernie@DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Pike patent claims
Message-ID: <861@DIALix.oz.au>
Date: 17 Mar 91 09:11:53 GMT
References: <20018@alice.att.com> <1991Mar12.210014.23142@arnor.uucp>
Followup-To: comp.misc
Organization: DIALix Services, Perth Western Australia
Lines: 24

In <1991Mar12.210014.23142@arnor.uucp> metzger@arnor.UUCP (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

>There isn't any real point in continuing, is there.

>The only choice is to make a major push to stop software patents NOW,
>while we still can!

>Perry Metzger

Of course, most of those software claims could be dismissed on the
grounds that they are obvious (a priori) to anyone "skilled in the 
art", couldn't they? Are the patent examiners in a position to 
judge that?

Only a peer review can reveal what is obvious. Or isn't that obvious??
No amount of legal to-and-fro will resolve matters as well as a peer
review.

Having read the setuid patent, I can see how some software ideas can
be patented (logic elements in a circuit).
-- 
 ________Bernd_Felsche__________bernie@DIALix.oz.au_____________
[ Phone: +61 9 419 2297		19 Coleman Road			]
[ TZ:	 UTC-8			Calista, Western Australia 6167	]