Patrick Elliott wrote:
> I am trying to proceed on logic here,

You're arguing that patents on non-patentable stuff are permitted because 
those who have patents on other non-patentable stuff avoid arguing that such 
things should be non-patentable for fear of setting a precedent on that subject.

I'm saying it doesn't work that way.

> Its not about *if* the system has been doing this stuff, 

Doing what "stuff"? Trying to win patent cases?

>>> 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..

They're not going to say "let's loose this case, just in case we win the 
case, it gets appealed, we win the appeal, it gets appealed again, we win 
*that* appeal, and it sets a precedent that our current employer may need to 
fight in some future case that hasn't come up yet."  Yes, that's what I'm 
saying, seriously.

If you know of any lawyer that intentionally looses a case just in case they 
might win multiple appeals in the future, let me know so I can avoid hiring 
them.

Because, you know, they could always just intentionally loose the appeal.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message