Darren New wrote:
> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/20/1811246&tid=473
> 
> http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/10/1218231
> 
> Apparently, now US patents either have to be about how to build 
> something ("transforming one thing into another") or about a specific 
> machine (excluding that which you can build on a general purpose computer).
> 
> Yay!
> 
> Sounds like Finnish law even excludes the first one, from what I've 
> understood talking here, but at least there's no more "patents on 
> hanging up a sign to advertise your business" stupidity.

Just think of the clear-cutting that would take place if only the 
inventor of a thing could hold the patent on that thing, and if only the 
author of a work could hold the patent on that work.

A.K.A. what the Constitution says...

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message