|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> You just got through saying that precedent applies to identical or
>> nearly identical situations. So your question.. doesn't make sense in
>> context of what I am saying.
>
> You only think it doesn't. I will assume that since you avoided
> answering the question, the answer is "no".
I am trying to proceed on logic here, you are arguing that, "Well, no,
it doesn't, for a lot of reasons, the biggest one being that it just
*doesn't*." You presume that I care "how" it works, and not whether or
not it makes any damn sense for it *too* work that way, as I already
said. Its not about *if* the system has been doing this stuff, its
whether or not they should have been in the first place, and if that has
resulting in the net *opposite* of what was intended, which one can
argue, in many cases it appears likely.
>> In other words, what I am saying is, attacking the validity of
>> software patent is a meta issue that effects "all" of them, not just
>> the specific cases.
>
> And you're missing my point again. The lawyer doesn't care, nor does the
> judge.
>
Uh, judge yes, but somehow I don't think the lawyer, who usually works
for the company, is going to be that unbiased. Seriously..
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |