X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <ehj@cleosan.com>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from cleosan.com (unknown [194.198.15.242])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC69D4A793
	for <patents@aful.org>; Thu,  4 Dec 2003 18:13:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from h14n2fls33o988.telia.com ([213.67.225.14] helo=cleosan.com)
	by cleosan.com with asmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 1ARurX-0006Pb-00
	for patents@aful.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:53:51 +0100
Message-ID: <3FCF6496.1050203@cleosan.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:45:10 +0100
From: Erik Josefsson <ehj@cleosan.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031014 Thunderbird/0.3
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: patents@aful.org
Subject: Re: [Patents] Nasty move from MicroSoft
References: <1070549567.3377.62.camel@localhost> <1070552331.1887.68.camel@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <1070552331.1887.68.camel@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Validation-by: ehj@cleosan.com

Simo Sorce wrote:

> Well I think such patents should never pass the obviousity test, prior
> art may be considered the unix hardlink that also permit you a similar
> concept (different name for the same file).

The relevant question in the light of the Parliament Amended Directive 
is if the patent qualifies as "subject matter".

//Erik


