Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- From: Jan Vorbrüggen <jvorbrueggen-not@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:11:27 +0200
> I despise dealing with lawyers myself.
While I find that understandable, for one thing I don't have to deal with
US lawyers often - thank God for that! For another, I have come to the
considered opinion that the first thing one needs to make clear to a lawyer
is that she doesn't run the show, instead being there to serve the issue
at hand. If that isn't accepted, there's no way one will find a productive
working relationship with that person.
The dilemma, of course, is if you can't get rid of one with the bad attitude,
for whatever reason. But at least there are enough cases where one is in
sufficient control to achieve this.
Jan
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- From: Joe Krahn
- Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- References:
- O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- From: AN O'Nymous
- Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- From: Richard Maine
- O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- Prev by Date: Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- Next by Date: Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- Previous by thread: Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- Next by thread: Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
