Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Not broken, invalid as a concept. Please describe to me *anything* in 
> software that isn't technically a set of instructions,

People don't patent software.

Claim 16: A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable 
by a computing system to ....

You really need to understand that the details matter.

> No, we have this problem because, it seems, everyone arguing the cases 
> has either ignored, glossed over, or blindingly failed to address, the 
> "definition" of patent, 

Yeah. The entire legal system involved with patents has no idea what they're 
doing and can't even read the statutes or the patents themselves.


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
   Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
     Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message