On 12/8/05, Lee Revell <rlrevell@email-addr-hidden-job.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 14:43 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > Anyone intersted in further study could easily discover the U.S.
> > patent numbers that were originally licensed to NemeSys. (Not Tascam!)
> > If someone cannot do that for themselves then they probably could
> > figure out someone who does know the numbers and ask so they could
> > read the patents for themselves.
> >
> > Please note that while I am greatly disappointed that all of this has
> > happened I still thinkLS is a really great piece of work and I, for
> > one, still have great respect for all the folks that have done this
> > work.
>
> If the issue really is a patent dispute involving a patent that is 1) a
> software patent and 2) obvious and therefore invalid, wouldn't this be
> the first case where a corporation went after a free software project
> for software patent infringement? And if this were the case shouldn't
> there be a huge uproar going on?
>
> Lee
Lee,
I don't know the answers to your questions but I do not believe
that I said that the patent was "obvious and therefore invalid". IANAL
and wouldn't want to suggest anything like that.
Please note that this may or may not be considered a 'software
patent' as disk streaming is involved.
With best regards,
Mark
Received on Fri Dec 9 08:15:10 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 09 2005 - 08:15:10 EET