Slashdot Mirror

There is an apparent corruption of the word process that confused a physical process with a logical process. The process for making steel is not the same as a process describing how to manage the making of steel.

The very fact that you have to add the adjectives "physical" and "logical" to "process" undermines your argument. You've admitted that "process" is generic to both, and we can see that "process" is the word that was used.

You're not happy with patents for business methods. Many people aren't. But let's not pretend that the principal architect of the 1952 act was anyone other than man who ruled that there is no business method exception to patentable "methods" and "processes". Then, turn to the fact that even the Supreme Court is not willing to back your interpretation.

The argument concerning the meaning of the law is over and done with. If you refuse to turn to arguments concerning policy and changes to the law, you may as well change your name to Don Quixote.

They would send out the same catalog to the same address but would have different prices for the same items depending on how much you had previously bought or were male or female. People began to figure this out and complained.

Link 1 about this issue and another link from a 1998 Forbes article on the issue of price discrimination.

For a more in-depth look at price discrimination, see this link which is a muli-page essay from the Virginia Journal of Law and Technology from 2001.

The proper function of law is to facilitate economic advances that provide a net benefit to the public. The prevailing intellectual property, contract, and preemption laws are each designed to achieve this purpose. Since mass-market public software licenses conform to these laws and provide a net benefit to the public, their enforceability should be declared certain.

So he's already answered the question: yes, he believes it's enforceable. Perhaps the question should be "have any new court precedent(s) or anything else changed your conclusions as expressed in Paragraph 99 since you wrote Facilitating Collaborative Software Development: The Enforceability of Mass-Market Public Software Licenses

(And please don't answer with, "It depends" :-).)

--

The proper function of law is to facilitate economic advances that provide a net benefit to the public. The prevailing intellectual property, contract, and preemption laws are each designed to achieve this purpose. Since mass-market public software licenses conform to these laws and provide a net benefit to the public, their enforceability should be declared certain.

So he's already answered the question: yes, he believes it's enforceable. Perhaps the question should be "have any new court precedent(s) or anything else changed your conclusions as expressed in Paragraph 99 since you wrote Facilitating Collaborative Software Development: The Enforceability of Mass-Market Public Software Licenses

(And please don't answer with, "It depends" :-).)

--

The proper function of law is to facilitate economic advances that provide a net benefit to the public. The prevailing intellectual property, contract, and preemption laws are each designed to achieve this purpose. Since mass-market public software licenses conform to these laws and provide a net benefit to the public, their enforceability should be declared certain.

So he's already answered the question: yes, he believes it's enforceable. Perhaps the question should be "have any new court precedent(s) or anything else changed your conclusions as expressed in Paragraph 99 since you wrote Facilitating Collaborative Software Development: The Enforceability of Mass-Market Public Software Licenses

(And please don't answer with, "It depends" :-).)

--

• The Harvard Journal of Law and Technology,
  The Journal of Online Law,
  The Virginia Journal of Law and Technology,
  The Berkeley Journal of Law and Technology,
  The Stanford Technology Law Review, and
  The Berkman Center for Internet & Technology

-Alex