Microsoft Patents 'IsNot'
Piet van Oostrum
piet at cs.uu.nl
Thu Nov 25 14:05:39 CET 2004
>>>>> Lenard Lindstrom <len-1 at telus.net> (LL) wrote:
LL> I would hope that a rewrite of Claim-2 of the patent is required before
LL> the patent is accept (if it is not outright rejected). Claim-2 is too
LL> vague to be meaningful. Proper definitions of "BASIC" and "derived" are
LL> missing. I imaging the patent is intended to protect Visual Basic.NET
LL> rather than restrict unrelated languages like Delphi and Python
If it would be applied to Python there would be enough prior art anyway.
And they forgot to put the word 'invention' between quotes.
How stupid can they become?
Piet van Oostrum <piet at cs.uu.nl>
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP]
Private email: P.van.Oostrum at hccnet.nl
More information about the Python-list