[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Some opinions on the appellate court's decision (longish)
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Some opinions on the appellate court's decision (longish)
- From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 06:06:14 -0700
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! *****
- References: <[email protected]>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Thursday 29 November 2001 15:57, you wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Claus Fischer wrote:
> > As opposed to other forms of instruction, like recipes and
> > blueprints, where the functional aspect is not so immediate.
> >
> > Perhaps it would be good to argue that for many forms of
> > speech (blueprings, cooking recipes) machines can be
> > constructed which do the same (shove in normed blueprint,
> > press button, get result); the only technical aspect here is
>
> Such machine exist commercially:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=3d+prototyping+
It therefore follows that mechanical drawings are illegal, since
they can be used to violate my patents by the "click of a mouse."
Maybe I should sue the pulp&paper industry for contributory
infringement.
--
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <[email protected]> ----------+