[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Software patent debate: we lose round one

• From: Andrew Cassin <acassin@c...>
• To: David Megginson <david@m...>
• Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 11:51:57 +1000

On Mon, 29 May 2000 10:37:02 David Megginson wrote:
> I'm actually posting this as a cautionary tale, because Tim arrives
> unprepared and gets badly whumped in the debate (at least, it looks
that
> way reading the transcript; it's probably even worse in the RealAudio
> version). 

The audio version is no better. Tod draws a line in the sand between the

PTO's responsibility and the responsibilities of US congress and is
very
effective in getting the point across. 

> If we're going to carry on this debate in any meaningful way,
> we're going to have to come much better prepared, and this debate
shows
> very clearly where we need to collect a lot of good, credible
evidence
> to back up our claims.

Indeed. And this material must be sent to the US patent 
office by the truck load :-/ how will the software industry fund such
prior-art 
challenges and lodgements?


Andrew Cassin
acassin@c...

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• Prev by Date: Re: Software patent debate: we lose round one
• Next by Date: HTML + CSS to XML + CSS - what about namespaces?
• Previous by thread: Re: Software patent debate: we lose round one
• Next by thread: RE: Software patent debate: we lose round one
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread