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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,525be57bd7f45978 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news1.google.com!newsread.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!colt.net!fr.colt.net!teaser.fr!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Preben Randhol Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada syntax patents Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:14:49 +0100 Organization: PVV Message-ID: References: <421b581b$0$13221$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> <1109148987.384389.187240@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <7720213.akB6FCcMrh@linux1.krischik.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1109186138 53339 212.85.156.195 (23 Feb 2005 19:15:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:15:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org To: Martin Krischik Return-Path: In-reply-to: <7720213.akB6FCcMrh@linux1.krischik.com> Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8476 Date: 2005-02-23T20:14:49+01:00 Martin Krischik wrote on 23/02/2005 (10:05) : > Yes it is called "prior art". The problem is that such a patent may be > granted and the Ada compiler vendors whould need to go to court to proof > "prior art". Isn't it the other way around? It must be the one that want's to protect his stupid patent that drags you to court. > If court cases where not so expensive those patent laws where not realy a > problem. It is the combination which make the problem so explosive. Software patents are hopeless. It is only a means to hurt the economy and the competition. If the patents had been awarded for stuff that took years to develope and that has REAL intellectual property it would be ok. Then it ensures that the companies will work hard to progress as they can get their monies back. However, now such stupidies as one-click, wordprocessor XML-files format etc... are given. This hurts the economy and not promote it. Just think if somebody tomorrow could charge everyone driving a car in the US $100 per day to use the car. Would this benifit the economy (it would benifit the environment, but that is a different matter)? Preben