EU software patent law faces axe 830
How The Linux Trolls Post From OPEN PROXIES
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:49:00 +0100, Roy Culley So? Why do you COLA nuts feel the need...
Anyone using Mephis 834
Sammy Lister There are a LOT of people using Mepis. There are two or three Q-A websites for it. And everyone who has tried Kubuntu says that it can't touch Mepis for stability and...
I didn't say that linux code was copied illegally, that's a matter for a court some day perhaps. All I said that it was copied according to linux opponents and proponents alike.
But no actual suit.
The thread was started on the patent issue. My term "copycat" does not mean copyright violation, but rather re-invention of a highly similar thing done to compete with an original. For example Lotus 123 and Visi-Calc or Access and dBase or even PCDOS and CP-M. Since there were no patents involved, the copycat company was able to legally replicate the functions and methods of the original and enter into a compebreastion. Since the original often has been less efficiently derived, since it was breaking new ground, the copy often has a financial advantage and so comes with a lower price.
I don't disagree with that. I think all software patents that describe things that are relatively obvious or that patent doing something with a computer that the prinicples have been previously done with other apparatus, should not be subject to a patent.
BWWWHAHHAHAHAHAA. Thank God For Win XP! 831
Mike Cox When they do, I'll ask them to aim carefully; I don't want to get wet. Seriously, I...
If someone uses a computer in a unique way to create a process method that has definite advantages over anything previously built, the software involved should be patentable. For example a fly-by-wire system that uses a computer to solve some complex flight stability function to allow something like the Stealth planes to be controlled where conventional methods could not work should be patentable.
I don't think you are looking at the problem the way the law is written. By that logic, Edison couldn't get a patent on the light bulb, since it was well known even then that electricity could cause resistive elements to glow and even burn and that fires couldn't burn in a vacuum. But this narrow use was an invention.
I think that the corporate laws are pretty well settled and an employee that is not acting in the role of a corporate officer cannot enter into any binding agreement that commits the corporation to a course of action that the corporate officers do not agree to. If you want the right to audit a company's use of software products on some demand basis, you have to make an agreement with a corporate officer. That is done all the time and the corporation is therefore aware of the commitment. A deal is a deal.
Only relative to the copy obtained by the employee.