[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Software Patents
From: |
Lee Hollaar |
Subject: |
Re: Software Patents |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:46:26 -0600 (MDT) |
In article <nm9d4zr3jgf.fsf@grumpy-fuzzball.mit.edu> Bruce Lewis
<brlewis@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>rjack <rjack@com> writes:
>
>> This was an open invitation by the Supreme Court directed to Congress
>> requesting that Congress simply do its job --- *LEGISLATE*.
>
>Yes, but if Congress declines this invitation, then one should assume
>that the Supreme Court's opinion that software is not patentable is
>good-enough law.
The Supreme Court *never* said that. Even in _Benson_, the Court said:
It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program
servicing a computer. We do not so hold.
409 U.S. at 71.
- Software Patents, rjack, 2007/06/17
- Re: Software Patents, pltrgyst, 2007/06/18
- Re: Software Patents, Lee Hollaar, 2007/06/18
- Re: Software Patents, rjack, 2007/06/18
- Re: Software Patents, Lee Hollaar, 2007/06/18
- Re: Software Patents, rjack, 2007/06/18
- Re: Software Patents, Lee Hollaar, 2007/06/18
- Re: Software Patents, rjack, 2007/06/18
- Re: Software Patents, Lee Hollaar, 2007/06/18
Re: Software Patents, Bruce Lewis, 2007/06/20
- Re: Software Patents,
Lee Hollaar <=
- Re: Software Patents, Bruce Lewis, 2007/06/20
- Re: Software Patents, rjack, 2007/06/20
- Re: Software Patents, Lee Hollaar, 2007/06/20
- Re: Software Patents, rjack, 2007/06/20
- Re: Software Patents, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/06/21
- Re: Software Patents, rjack, 2007/06/21
- Re: Software Patents, Lee Hollaar, 2007/06/21
- Re: Software Patents, dt, 2007/06/21
- Re: Software Patents, Lee Hollaar, 2007/06/21
- Re: Software Patents, rjack, 2007/06/21