X-Sympa-To: patents@aful.org
Return-Path: <rms@gnu.org>
X-Original-To: patents@aful.org
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [199.232.76.164])
	by perennite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD08DAF126
	for <patents@aful.org>; Wed,  2 May 2007 17:18:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <rms@gnu.org>)
	id 1HjGYG-0004eH-FR; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:15:32 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: "Michael S. Hart" <hart@pobox.com>
Cc: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org, A2K@lists.essential.org,
	upd-discuss@lists.essential.org, ecommerce@lists.essential.org,
	patents@aful.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705011941090.5223@pglaf.org> (message from
	Michael Hart on Tue, 1 May 2007 19:44:28 -0700 (PDT))
Subject: Re: [Upd-discuss] SCOTUS Overrules Rigid US Appeals Court Approach
 to Patentability of Combinations of Existing Elements
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
References: <4636A0D4.60233491@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <E1Hj2S3-0001TN-3y@fencepost.gnu.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705011941090.5223@pglaf.org>
Message-Id: <E1HjGYG-0004eH-FR@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 11:15:32 -0400
X-Validation-by: rms@gnu.org

    While I agree with Mr. Stallman that the written word should not be patented,
    it is probably for much deeper philosophical reasons concering the very great
    difference between copyright and patent, which Mr. Stallman did not mention.

Thank you for reminding the list of the reason why the term
"intellectual property" is incoherent and must be rejected.
(As you can see, I don't bring it up EVERY time it is relevant.
Sometimes I leave that to you ;-).
