Thank you for the input, Phil. (01)
I was actually pondering on (and hence my question was directed
more toward) the good this move (putting the IPR in the public
domain, if we do so ... AND making all that work accessible in
all its detail, as CHM is doing, with the NLS-restore project)
can do to innovation in the future, more so than the move being
challenged by the past. (02)
Your clarification on USPTO state of affairs was helpful,
nonetheless. (03)
Thanks. =ppy
-- (04)
Philip Gust wrote Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:36:32 -0700:
> BTW, what CHM would be putting in the public domain if it went that route
> is the copyright to the source code and any coverage under trade secrets
> law. All we can really say about other IPR is that it's extremely unlikely
> there are any (see my previous comments). (05)
> At 09:02 AM 6/11/2005, Peter Yim wrote:
>
>>Yes! I believe this (putting the IPR in the public domain ... AND
>>making all that work accessible in all its detail, as CHM is
>>doing) could do wonders on innovations that has a root in the NLS
>>technologies, going forward, even if we cannot avoid having
>>software patents, because we have a first-to-invent system going
>>here (in the US).
>>
>>Can someone explain hat this move might connote, under a
>>first-to-file patent regime?
>>
>>=ppy
>>--
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://chm.cim3.net/forum/nls-restore/
Shared Files: http://chm.cim3.net/file/work/project/nls-restore/
Community Portal: http://www.computerhistory.org/
To Post: mailto:nls-restore@chm.cim3.net
Community Wiki: http://chm.cim3.net/wiki/ (06)
|