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