[%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% END %074db819ec)

From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>
Cc: russell@flora.ca, xdrudis@tinet.org, nb@norbert.ch, fsl-discuss@alt.org, DMCA-Activists@gnu.org, DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org, fairuse-discuss@nyfairuse.org, patents@aful.org, seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org, xdrudis@tinet.org, iriXx@iriXx.org, C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org, s11@member.fsf.org, simo.sorce@xsec.it, phm@a2e.de
Subject: Re: [fsl-discuss] Re: [Patents] The politics of software over-protection -- moving forward..
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 09:45:26 -0400

Fed CAFC decisions get reviewed by the Supreme Court, so
when it comes to patent law, the CAFC is effectively the highest court.

When it comes to patent law, the Supreme Court is the highest court.
I agree we have little hope that courts will correct the injustice,
but for whatever it is worth, we can still argue that the CAFC made
an error.

Nonetheless, this is primarily a political issue, not a legal one.
The important question is whether software ideas should be monopolized
by patents, not what current US law says.

Re: [Patents] The politics of software over-protection -- moving forward.., (continued)

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

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