[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>
- To: Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>
- Cc: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org>, <epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk>, <patents@aful.org>, <phm@openecs.org>, John Smith <notobvious@hotmail.com>
- Subject: Re: [Patents] Re: Summary of legal arguments
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 05:51:01 +0100 (CET)
> Who gives a crap about old decisions like Dispositionsprogram that use
> the words "technical" and/or "technology" when much more recent German
> court decisions admit that they don't have a definition for the term.
> And if they don't now, they certainly didn't when Dispositionsprogram
> was decided.
Again nonsense, refuted many times.
- Recent decisions are not necessarily more correct or up to date than old
ones
- Recent BGH decisions do not apply the technicity concept rigidly, but
they use the same concept as Dispositionsprogramm and are even careful
to quote that decision.
--
Hartmut Pilch http://phm.ffii.org/
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation http://swpat.ffii.org/
100,000 signatures against software patents http://www.noepatents.org/
- Re: [Patents] Hardware N Software, (continued)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)