[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)


(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) 
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Reply to sender(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)to list(074db819ec%END%074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email == 'srctran@world.std.com' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
> can't we return to a clear concept of technical invention, which would
> exclude software patents in the first place

Sorry, but if you are going to assert such unsubstantiated reasoning,
you leave me no choice but to point out to that most people on both
sides of the atlantic, that most clear concepts of technical invention 
include software patents.  I like the thought that software turns a
general purpose machine into a specific purpose machine, the
combination of which always achieves a technical effect.

Greg Aharonian



(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)