From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,37680a99b5e22b2b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Shared Generic Instance Code Date: 1997/04/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 230467946 Distribution: world References: <5hrkhkINN9ip@snoopy.cis.ohio-state.edu> Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Jon, it is probably better if you not give legal opinions on patents unless > you have studied the area. You say You actually think this is "legal opinion"???!?!?!? Get real. I merely said that I had to look into some of this stuff and talked with some patent lawyers. Doesn't mean I understand the area - in fact I admit that I don't! > < stuff over the last few months. My understanding is that unless > Intermetrics or Gary Bray took out a patent for their approach (prior > to the DEC filing), the prior "written up" idea is not sufficient to > "invalidate" the patent. Also, it seems that you can't patent an idea > per se - you have to specify how to produce a complete realization of > it. But to be honest, this stuff seems really opaque to me...>> I'd say there is more than enough disclaimer in here to not take this particularly seriously!! > This is completely wrong, prior art does NOT have to be in the form > of patents. You realize of course that this comment (indicating that _everything_ I said is wrong) implies that you believe that this stuff is _NOT_ really opaque to me. And thus, by your measure, I should be taken seriously on the subject after all! Criminey... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com