[Patents] WHAT WE LOST DUE TO GREG

[phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)]

> 1. First, we've lost a much of time -- the time, that actually is so
> precious here. Speaking, arguing and quarrelling with him, we had
> the FALSE aim to target; just like the shield at the loophole,
> instead of enemy who is running away with our treasures.
...

Right, but we also one something.

We were all able to realise the utter hollowness and dishonesty of the
other side's argumentation, and we were able to document that on the web
for history to see.

This I think has given us and a lot of other people a strong boost in
confidence.

------------

For the record.
Greg's unanswered questions:

(1) did you publish Jim Bessen's reply?  when?
(2) should everything under the sun that is novel and "non-obvious"
    be patentable?  E.g. musical and social engineering?  If not,
    what statutory limits do you propose and why are those
    any more "scientific" than those that we propose, i.e.
    the exclusion of abstract-logical innovation ?

-phm