Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Intentionally? I think I will refrain from making the same accusation... 

That was a complement. :-)

> I think we are perhaps both badly misunderstanding each other.

Perhaps. I think you're still talking about "should" and I'm still talking 
about "is". I'm not advocating that software *should* be patentable. I'm 
simply saying that right now it is, and I find your assertion that everyone 
including every lawyer on both sides of the argument and all the judges and 
patent examiners are colluding to "forget" that some things aren't 
patentable seems far-fetched.

Discussing the "should" of it might be interesting, but only with someone 
willing to discuss shades of grey.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
     with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
   I want that for a ring tone.

Post a reply to this message