Re: Year 2000 woes solved? -Reply

["James W. Kilgore" <qappdsn@xxxxxxx>]

Carl Friedberg, carl@comets.com wrote:
> 
> Scott, where've you been (no flame, just wondering....)
> 
> I thought the same thing. Wrong. You can definitely patent
> software; you are patenting the "idea", which is an
> astonishing twisting of the law, IMHO. I think it was
> Intel that got this decision. 

I have a Patent...you can patent a physical device, a process, or a
concept. So I paid to learn.

ie: if you can change a process to manufacture widgets, the process is
available for patent.
even though you do not have the patent on the widgets.

If you have a concept of widgets and don't even know how they can be
made, you can patent the concept of their existance (someone else can
patent the process to make and someone else can patent the application
of use)

My patent existed before any Intel decission, it's been around since
dirt. I doubt they broke new ground.

As my lawyer told me, no matter what happens, keep 10% aside to fight
the unavoidable battles.

BTW, most "agreements" you read about in the press are no more then "I
won't sue you, you won't sue me" agreements.  (can we spell NT and
OS2?....for those that doubt watch closely when you load NT and you'll
see OS2.exe being loaded)

Just my 2 cents.  (inflation accounted for) :)

James W. Kilgore
QAPPDSN@ibm.net
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com
|    and specify 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---