Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- From: Joe Krahn <lastname_at_niehs.nih.gov@xxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:42:34 -0500
Jan Vorbrüggen wrote:
> 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.
I suspect most Fortran programmers despise dealing with lawyers, whether or not they despise the lawyers themselves. The problem is that lawyer logic is vastly different from mathematical logic. Lawyer logic is a very fuzzy and context dependent logic.
Joe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- From: Kevin G. Rhoads
- 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
- Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- From: Jan Vorbrüggen
- O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- Prev by Date: Re: fortran code for 'cp' / subroutine file_copy
- Next by Date: Re: question on character-like variable defination
- Previous by thread: Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- Next by thread: Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
