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: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Shared Generic Instance Code Date: 1997/04/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 230633726 References: <5hrkhkINN9ip@snoopy.cis.ohio-state.edu> <1997Apr1.201631.28634@ocsystems.com> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Regading "patent lawyer" post from Jon Actually I meant to send that as email, and canceled it soon after I accidentally posted it, but you saw it too fast :-) Sorry about that. The problem here is that the area of copyrights and patents is a complex one, and it is AMAZING how much misinformation is spread around by well meaning people. The view you presented is (a) completely wrong and (b) potentially damaging, since it encourages people to patent rather than publish for no good reason. I cannot imagine ANY "patent lawyer" even vaguely suggesting such an obvious misinterpretation of prior art! P.S. actually I find my newsreader can't send you email, something in your jheaders is vey strange, i see @alexandria, and nothing else)