Software Patents

[CBFalconer]

There is hope yet. Somebody did the right thing. See:

<http://swpat.ffii.org/log/05/ep0706/>

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <42***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cb********@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

There is hope yet. Somebody did the right thing. See:

<http://swpat.ffii.org/log/05/ep0706/>

I'm 93.6% sure that the word "software" doesn't appear anywhere in the "C
standard" and about 98.87% sure that the word "patent" also does not
appear.

Thus, the lords of topicality will judge ye to be OT. So sorry.

[CBFalconer]

Kenny McCormack wrote:

CBFalconer <cb********@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

There is hope yet. Somebody did the right thing. See:

<http://swpat.ffii.org/log/05/ep0706/>

I'm 93.6% sure that the word "software" doesn't appear anywhere in
the "C standard" and about 98.87% sure that the word "patent" also
does not appear.

Thus, the lords of topicality will judge ye to be OT. So sorry.

So why did you override the follow-up I had set to keep OT replies
out of the group?

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:

So why did you override the follow-up I had set to keep OT replies
out of the group?

I think an "OT" in the post title would have alleviated any potential
concerns about appropriateness. Of course, you're in a position where
you don't really have to concern yourself with being *plonk*'ed by
anyone important :-)

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Dave Thompson]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 14:17:24 GMT, ga*****@yin.interaccess.com (Kenny
McCormack) wrote:

In article <42***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cb********@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

There is hope yet. Somebody did the right thing. See:

<http://swpat.ffii.org/log/05/ep0706/>
I'm 93.6% sure that the word "software" doesn't appear anywhere in the "C
standard" and about 98.87% sure that the word "patent" also does not
appear.

'software' appears four times in C99, only one normative (in the
definition of 'implementation'). The ANSI (now INCITS) adoption adds
one more in a bibliographic note. 'patent' does not appear.

So you're [93.6%, 98.87%) wrong.
Thus, the lords of topicality will judge ye to be OT. So sorry.

- David.Thompson1 at worldnet.att.net

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <o7********************************@4ax.com>,
Dave Thompson <da*************@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 14:17:24 GMT, ga*****@yin.interaccess.com (Kenny
McCormack) wrote:

In article <42***************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cb********@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>There is hope yet. Somebody did the right thing. See:
>
> <http://swpat.ffii.org/log/05/ep0706/>

I'm 93.6% sure that the word "software" doesn't appear anywhere in the "C
standard" and about 98.87% sure that the word "patent" also does not
appear.

'software' appears four times in C99, only one normative (in the
definition of 'implementation'). The ANSI (now INCITS) adoption adds
one more in a bibliographic note. 'patent' does not appear.

So you're [93.6%, 98.87%) wrong.

Thus, the lords of topicality will judge ye to be OT. So sorry.

- David.Thompson1 at worldnet.att.net

Whoosh!!!