Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed)
2004-09-23 18:29:30
Meng Weng Wong wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 08:47:07PM -0400, Chuck Mead wrote:
| I would be very happy to help or undertake to create an edited, corrected
| version of this which all could use to brief their own political leaders.
|
| I will have some time for this on saturday and would be glad to post a
| refined version for review...
|
sounds good, but what exactly is the call to action? what
do you want the representatives to do?
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
To me, the call to action is a moratorium on patenting software. This
action by Microsoft just clearly brings to the forefront the need to
enact this at least for a period of time so that the whole issue can be
sorted out. Do we all want to have a lawyer to read our latest html page
to insure we haven't created something illegal? Heck, we don't have
enough legal staff on this list to really know if the M$ application
really means anything.
What if the image tag had not been created... could the creator of the
image tag in html then patent it?
I think we have a great launching point with a good cause to show the
need to stop these patents, at least for some period of time.
Has anybody ever wondered how many lawyers M$ has versus developers? I
bet there are more lawyers.
John Hinton
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), (continued)
Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), John Hinton
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Meng Weng Wong
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Jason Gurtz
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Jason Gurtz
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), John Hinton
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Meng Weng Wong
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed),
John Hinton <=
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead
- Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead
Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>
Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead
Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Michael Hammer
Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead
Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Michael Hammer
Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised (was Re: Disap pointed), Chuck Mead
Two reasons why software patents are bad, Stuart D. Gathman
Re: Two reasons why software patents are bad, Michael Hammer
|
|
|