Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- From: "Kevin G. Rhoads" <kgrhoads@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 20:20:19 +0000
Lawyer logic is a very fuzzy and context dependent logic.
Actually, it is different enough a process that even calling it by the name "logic" is
deceptive (albeit unintentionally) to anyone with a mathematical, scientific or engineering
background. What is done in law has its rules and precepts, but they do not fit together
in a form that universally conforms to "logic". I've learned a little about IP law in
self-defense (and to be able to interface more effectively with lawyers) and I strongly
suggest you do not even think about it using the same terminology.
Perhaps this is another place to invoke "Threepwood". ;-)
.
- 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
- Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- From: Joe Krahn
- O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- Prev by Date: Re: Structure of large link libraries in f95
- Next by Date: Re: Structure of large link libraries in f95
- Previous by thread: Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- Next by thread: Re: O/T: Patenting a computational scheme?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|