Re: [Patents] Re: Summary of legal arguments

[Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>]

El Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 12:05:42PM -0500, Gregory Aharonian deia:
> >Many of these start their argument with a definition debate about "what
> >are software patents", trying to score points on the difficulty of the
> >other side in defining something that is understood.
> 
> There is no difficulty in defining "software".  Much like a circuit
> diagram or a VHDL listing, "software" is a shorthand notation for a
> specific type of digital machine (for example, all software can be
> translated into field programmable gate array patterns for their
> implementation).  

Now I get it!. That's what you did to Eliza to handle your mail to 
this list. Isn't it?. You just were a little short of PGAs and 
the result behaves a little too repetitive.

By Eliza I mean that mytical program that kept a dialogue with a 
user in natural language by imitating some sort of psycological therapist...

Now, more seriously. I guess you can send what you want, but 
don't you get tired of being always so easily refuted?. 
You always say the same, we always answer the same...

But you still have not answered (or I did not understand) what 
subject matter do you propose should be patentable and what
(if any) should not. 

-- 
Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis@tinet.org