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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,5add429c86f59001
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Martin <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada vs Eiffel - Ada programmer approach
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 02:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <d3f84c96-538b-4907-bc5f-de5b3d60f27b@k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <405b5054-4c8f-4e16-9ea8-503a9b9f976e@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
	<4A19765C.608@obry.net>
 <8105b65f-4de9-4653-b43a-d55ee33f072d@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
	<4vCdnRo6At8-mIHXnZ2dnUVZ8n2dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <f4692ac2-9eee-4382-ba4e-b9d0a45e14e3@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 20.133.0.8
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1244108799 31882 127.0.0.1 (4 Jun 2009 09:46:39
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:46:39 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=20.133.0.8;
	posting-account=g4n69woAAACHKbpceNrvOhHWViIbdQ9G
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB;
 rv:1.9.0.11)
	Gecko/2009051909 Firefox/3.0.11,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6223
Date: 2009-06-04T02:46:39-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jun 4, 8:35=A0am, Hibou57 (Yannick Duch=EAne)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> On 26 mai, 17:07, Tim Rowe <spamt...@tgrowe.plus.net> wrote:
>
> > I still think it's a brilliant idea, but suffers from *Design* by
> > Contract getting confused with *Programming* by Contract; not least
> > because "Design by Contract" is a trademark,
>
> Clearly an abuse. I will never understand how it is allowed to make a
> common expression a trade mark. If GNAT is a trade mark, it is Ok, if
> Pepsi is a trade mark, it is Ok, but saying the expression "this
> common noun" or "doing a common-verb" is a trade mark... pffff....
>
> I even heard to say that "Happy Birthday" is a trade mark of some one.

The song "Happy Birthday" has IP rights (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H=
appy_Birthday_to_You)
but I don't think the phrase does...

Cheers
-- Martin