Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9774 misc.int-property:753 comp.unix.bsd:7474 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news!nosc!ryptyde!jim From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Interface monopolies Message-ID: <R0ZPTB3w165w@netlink.cts.com> Date: 4 Nov 92 15:16:14 GMT References: <id.J9OU.LJD@ferranti.com> Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA Lines: 16 peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: > In article <2P6NTB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) wr > > "Interface patents" should be classified as design patents. > > Yeh, but not all interface monopolies are patents. Look at the look-n-feel > lawsuits. I'm using a broader term because I'm dealing with a broader topic. I understand we have some nasty court opinions to deal with here, but legislation can clarify such things IF the congressmen receive good guidance. What I'm saying is that if you don't have a design patent on your interface, you should have no standing to defend it. -- INTERNET: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) UUCP: ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115