Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #6738 > unrolled thread

Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network)

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-24 12:59 -0700
    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Mark Wills <forthfreak@forthfiles.net> - 2011-10-24 13:40 -0700
      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Paul Gotch <paulg@at-cantab-dot.net> - 2011-10-24 23:20 +0100
        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) fatalist <simfidude@gmail.com> - 2011-10-25 06:38 -0700
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) ashtonrsmiller <rmiller@storm.ca> - 2011-10-25 07:47 -0700
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-10-25 08:25 -0700
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-10-25 20:21 -0400
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-10-26 07:54 -0700
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Paul Gotch <paulg@at-cantab-dot.net> - 2011-10-26 13:02 +0100
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) fatalist <simfidude@gmail.com> - 2011-10-26 05:36 -0700
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Paul Gotch <paulg@at-cantab-dot.net> - 2011-10-26 13:57 +0100
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-10-26 15:33 +0200
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-10-26 15:15 +0000
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Thomas Womack <twomack@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2011-10-26 17:16 +0100
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) fatalist <simfidude@gmail.com> - 2011-10-26 09:21 -0700
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-10-26 21:42 +0000
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) "langwadt@fonz.dk" <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2011-10-28 10:21 -0700
        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Rick <richardcortese@gmail.com> - 2011-10-25 07:55 -0700
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-25 21:25 -0700
        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2011-11-05 05:33 -0700
    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) ashtonrsmiller <rmiller@storm.ca> - 2011-10-24 20:14 -0700
    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) "rupertlssmith@googlemail.com" <rupertlssmith@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-26 07:13 -0700
      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Rick <richardcortese@gmail.com> - 2011-10-26 11:27 -0700
        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) - 2011-10-27 04:21 +0000
      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-27 13:54 -0700
        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Thomas Womack <twomack@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2011-10-28 00:07 +0100
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-10-28 09:17 +0200
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Rick <richardcortese@gmail.com> - 2011-10-28 12:15 -0700
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2011-10-29 12:20 +0200
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-10-29 15:10 +0000
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2011-10-29 19:57 +0200
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-10-29 21:08 +0000
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2011-10-30 00:35 -0700
                        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) clvrmnky <spamtrap@clevermonkey.org> - 2011-10-31 00:51 +0000
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-10-29 21:37 +0200
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-10-29 22:14 +0100
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-11-04 00:13 +0100
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Al Clark <aclark@danvillesignal.com> - 2011-10-31 05:44 +0000
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> - 2011-10-31 01:24 -0500
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-10-31 08:46 +0100
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2011-10-31 00:37 -0700
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:43 -0700
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-10-31 17:07 +0000
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-11-04 00:13 +0100
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:27 -0700
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Al Clark <aclark@danvillesignal.com> - 2011-10-31 17:47 +0000
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-10-31 21:33 +0000
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Rick <richardcortese@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 20:36 -0700
                        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-11-01 04:49 +0000
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Al Clark <aclark@danvillesignal.com> - 2011-11-01 04:05 +0000
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Al Clark <aclark@danvillesignal.com> - 2011-10-31 18:20 +0000
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 12:17 -0700
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-10-31 19:18 +0000
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2011-10-31 21:56 +0100
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Al Clark <aclark@danvillesignal.com> - 2011-11-01 03:54 +0000
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-11-01 05:38 +0000
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 09:54 -0700
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-10-28 09:46 -0700
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Thomas Womack <twomack@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2011-10-28 17:58 +0100
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-28 12:07 -0700
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-10-29 09:49 +0000
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-29 08:17 -0700
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:28 -0700
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 12:15 -0700
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-11-02 23:34 +0100
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-03 06:32 -0500
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ          Network) Kulin Remailer <remailer@reece.net.au> - 2011-11-03 14:35 +0000
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ        ? Network) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-03 10:44 -0500
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ        ? Network) Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2011-11-04 19:55 +0000
                        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ        ? Network) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-11-04 18:09 -0500
                          Patents [Was: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ        ? Network) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-05 04:13 -0500
                        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ ? Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-05 16:28 -0700
                          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ ? Network) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-11-11 01:02 +0100
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-10-28 22:15 +0200
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-28 12:03 -0700
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-10-28 22:50 +0200
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-10-29 08:23 -0700
    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 12:18 -0700
    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-05 16:46 -0700
      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-11-06 17:28 +0000
        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 11:08 -0800
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) fatalist <simfidude@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 11:34 -0800
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 12:13 -0800
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-11-07 20:30 +0000
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 13:04 -0800
          Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-11-07 20:18 +0000
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> - 2011-11-07 14:41 -0600
              Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 13:11 -0800
                Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> - 2011-11-07 17:04 -0600
                  Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-11-08 01:33 +0000
                    Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> - 2011-11-07 21:10 -0600
                      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-11-08 03:18 +0000
            Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 13:07 -0800
      Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) - 2011-11-23 17:27 +0000
        Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-11-23 15:09 -0800

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#6920

In article <a8f1923a-38a3-4d17-953e-c51228eda4bf@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
rickman  <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 28, 12:46=A0pm, Brad <hwfw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 27, 4:07=A0pm, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>> wrote:> Apple's patent is on the slide-to-unlock
>> > bar; if they've spent a lot of time looking at alternate unlock
>> > mechanisms and determined that slide-to-unlock is in some usability
>> > sense the best, they should get to ask anyone else with
>> > slide-to-unlock for, say, a dollar per device.
>>
>> But handing out a "License to Extort" to everyone with a new idea
>> (whether brilliant or half baked) is no way to run an economy.
>
>Isn't that the point that by giving inventors "rights" to their own
>invention that it encourages the invention process?  I can assure you
>that many inventions would have happened much later or not at all if
>patents didn't exist.  If for no other reason because many inventors
>and companies would not be in the business.  They would probably be on
>Wall street.

Project that onto Tesla. He invented the electricity power grid,
with a distance the most import invention of all times,
and sold that for a pittance to Westinghouse.

Project that onto Chuck Moore.

What did inventors do before there where patents?
Wall street? Come one!

>Rick

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6930

On Oct 29, 5:49 am, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>
wrote:
> In article <a8f1923a-38a3-4d17-953e-c51228eda...@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> rickman  <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 28, 12:46=A0pm, Brad <hwfw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 27, 4:07=A0pm, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> >> wrote:> Apple's patent is on the slide-to-unlock
> >> > bar; if they've spent a lot of time looking at alternate unlock
> >> > mechanisms and determined that slide-to-unlock is in some usability
> >> > sense the best, they should get to ask anyone else with
> >> > slide-to-unlock for, say, a dollar per device.
>
> >> But handing out a "License to Extort" to everyone with a new idea
> >> (whether brilliant or half baked) is no way to run an economy.
>
> >Isn't that the point that by giving inventors "rights" to their own
> >invention that it encourages the invention process?  I can assure you
> >that many inventions would have happened much later or not at all if
> >patents didn't exist.  If for no other reason because many inventors
> >and companies would not be in the business.  They would probably be on
> >Wall street.
>
> Project that onto Tesla. He invented the electricity power grid,
> with a distance the most import invention of all times,
> and sold that for a pittance to Westinghouse.
>
> Project that onto Chuck Moore.
>
> What did inventors do before there where patents?
> Wall street? Come one!
>
> >Rick
>
> Groetjes Albert


That's what I'm saying, Wall Street COME ON!!!

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7060

On Oct 28, 12:07 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If for no other reason because many inventors
> and companies would not be in the business.  They would probably be on
> Wall street.

Do star performers do what they do for money? Or because the creative
process fulfills them?

A bunch of people on Wall Street chasing bubbles doesn't really create
much, unless you include the housing market train wreck.

Competition in our industry is intense. Most output is shoddy. There
is a pervasive quality problem. There's never time to do it right, but
always time to do it over. What causes this? People chasing bubbles.

Patents are part of an economic system based on competition. That
system works for the common good only because participants use it that
way. There is a perception that the legal system prevents abuse, but
in the end I think non-abuse is voluntary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7062

On Nov 2, 1:28 pm, Brad <hwfw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 12:07 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If for no other reason because many inventors
> > and companies would not be in the business.  They would probably be on
> > Wall street.
>
> Do star performers do what they do for money? Or because the creative
> process fulfills them?
>
> A bunch of people on Wall Street chasing bubbles doesn't really create
> much, unless you include the housing market train wreck.
>
> Competition in our industry is intense. Most output is shoddy. There
> is a pervasive quality problem. There's never time to do it right, but
> always time to do it over. What causes this? People chasing bubbles.
>
> Patents are part of an economic system based on competition. That
> system works for the common good only because participants use it that
> way. There is a perception that the legal system prevents abuse, but
> in the end I think non-abuse is voluntary.

You are certainly right that much more abuse could be found in the
Patent system except that many just don't want to go to the "dark
side".  Some "abuse" is relative.  For example some here feel ALL
software patents are abusive.  I can't agree with that.  When folks
start programming the GA devices, I can see all sorts of new ideas
coming out of that since it is such a new type of platform.  Is it
"abusive" to patent patents on new ideas just because they are
implemented in software?

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7071

rickman wrote:
> Is it
> "abusive" to patent patents on new ideas just because they are
> implemented in software?

No, the whole concept of having a monopoly on an idea is abusive.  It 
even prevents others who have the same idea independently from using it.

If you have a good idea, make a good product out of it and sell it.  
Against your fiercy competition who will imitate you as quick as they 
can.  Have more good ideas to stay ahead.

The really brilliant ideas will not be stolen, anyways, you have to 
force them down people's throat - it's like this years nobel price for 
chemistry, the guy got mobbed out of his group for discovering something 
mathematics have discovered as possible construct two decades before 
(penrose tilings).

Most arguments for patents are circular reasoning.  We have a patent 
system, so we need to patent our ideas, otherwise we will fall behind - 
the competition can use our ideas, but we can't use theirs.  Yes, of 
course, this is bad.  But it is that way, because some English 
parliament, 400 years ago, forgot to abolish patents on ideas, while 
they were about to abolish all those other stupid patents that stiffled 
the economy back then.  It never made any sense, but we still have it!

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7088

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

> You are certainly right that much more abuse could be found in the
> Patent system except that many just don't want to go to the "dark
> side".  Some "abuse" is relative.  For example some here feel ALL
> software patents are abusive.  I can't agree with that.  When folks
> start programming the GA devices, I can see all sorts of new ideas
> coming out of that since it is such a new type of platform.  Is it
> "abusive" to patent patents on new ideas just because they are
> implemented in software?

Absolutely.  To grant to an individual a government-enforced monopoly
is such an extreme act that it requires very strong justification.
The only possible justification is that it encourages people to
develop and publish inventions when they wouldn't otherwise have done
so: in other words, to "promote the progress of science and useful
arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".

The questions are, firstly, whether the inventions covered by software
patents would not have been made, used, and published had there not
been software patents.  And, on the other side, whether the
enforcement of software patents impedes the progress of science and
useful arts.  And I think you know the answer to both of those.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7093 — Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ Network)

Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinko.invalid> wrote:

> Absolutely.  To grant to an individual a government-enforced monopoly
> is such an extreme act that it requires very strong justification.

True but unrelated to patents.

> The only possible justification is that it encourages people to
> develop and publish inventions when they wouldn't otherwise have done
> so: in other words, to "promote the progress of science and useful
> arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
> exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".

Horseshit. The justification is invention belongs to the inventor, anything
else is strong-arm robbery. Life, liberty, and property all existed before
governments, and the preservation of those 3 things are the only legitimate
province of government.

> The questions are, firstly, whether the inventions covered by software
> patents would not have been made, used, and published had there not
> been software patents.  And, on the other side, whether the
> enforcement of software patents impedes the progress of science and
> useful arts.  And I think you know the answer to both of those.

Irrelevant. You can conjure up all the reasons in the world to deprive
someone of his property, but if you do so you're a damn robber and criminal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7094 — Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ ? Network)

Kulin Remailer <remailer@reece.net.au> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinko.invalid> wrote:

:-)

> 
>> Absolutely.  To grant to an individual a government-enforced monopoly
>> is such an extreme act that it requires very strong justification.
> 
> True but unrelated to patents.

How can it be?  A patent surely is a government-enforced monopoly.

>> The only possible justification is that it encourages people to
>> develop and publish inventions when they wouldn't otherwise have done
>> so: in other words, to "promote the progress of science and useful
>> arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
>> exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".
> 
> Horseshit. The justification is invention belongs to the inventor,
> anything else is strong-arm robbery. Life, liberty, and property all
> existed before governments, and the preservation of those 3 things
> are the only legitimate province of government.

None of these three things includes patent law.

You can quickly find any number of sources that support this view, but
you might reject them all; it certainly is the most common
justification of patent law.  There is no natural right to have a
monopoly on the expression of one's ideas, and there is an economic
argument that government-enforced monopolies, like all monopolies,
hurt economic efficiency, to everyone's loss.  The only question that
remains, then is whether such monopolies on balance benefit society.

>> The questions are, firstly, whether the inventions covered by
>> software patents would not have been made, used, and published had
>> there not been software patents.  And, on the other side, whether
>> the enforcement of software patents impedes the progress of science
>> and useful arts.  And I think you know the answer to both of those.
> 
> Irrelevant.

It's crucial, because this is the justification for patents that
exists in law.  (Or, at least, in American law, although some other
territories use similar words.)  Patents don't exist in order to make
sure that inventors are rewarded.

> You can conjure up all the reasons in the world to deprive someone
> of his property, but if you do so you're a damn robber and criminal.

True, but unrelated to patents.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7119 — Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ ? Network)

Kulin Remailer <remailer@reece.net.au> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinko.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Absolutely.  To grant to an individual a government-enforced monopoly
> > is such an extreme act that it requires very strong justification.
> 
> True but unrelated to patents.
> 
> > The only possible justification is that it encourages people to
> > develop and publish inventions when they wouldn't otherwise have done
> > so: in other words, to "promote the progress of science and useful
> > arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
> > exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".
> 
> Horseshit. The justification is invention belongs to the inventor, anything
> else is strong-arm robbery. Life, liberty, and property all existed before
> governments, and the preservation of those 3 things are the only legitimate
> province of government.
> 
> > The questions are, firstly, whether the inventions covered by software
> > patents would not have been made, used, and published had there not
> > been software patents.  And, on the other side, whether the
> > enforcement of software patents impedes the progress of science and
> > useful arts.  And I think you know the answer to both of those.
> 
> Irrelevant. You can conjure up all the reasons in the world to deprive
> someone of his property, but if you do so you're a damn robber and criminal.
>

Ok, Jane and Mark independenty invent the same thing.  Jane did it
a bit earlier and was first to file for a patnet.  Current law
gives monoply to Jane and effectively deprives Mark from his invention.
So, how can you avoid calling current system "strong-arm robbery"?


-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch
hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7120 — Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ ? Network)

On 11/4/11 2:55 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> Kulin Remailer<remailer@reece.net.au>  wrote:
>> Andrew Haley<andrew29@littlepinko.invalid>  wrote:
>>
>>> Absolutely.  To grant to an individual a government-enforced monopoly
>>> is such an extreme act that it requires very strong justification.
>>
>> True but unrelated to patents.
>>
>>> The only possible justification is that it encourages people to
>>> develop and publish inventions when they wouldn't otherwise have done
>>> so: in other words, to "promote the progress of science and useful
>>> arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
>>> exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".
>>
>> Horseshit. The justification is invention belongs to the inventor, anything
>> else is strong-arm robbery. Life, liberty, and property all existed before
>> governments, and the preservation of those 3 things are the only legitimate
>> province of government.
>>
>>> The questions are, firstly, whether the inventions covered by software
>>> patents would not have been made, used, and published had there not
>>> been software patents.  And, on the other side, whether the
>>> enforcement of software patents impedes the progress of science and
>>> useful arts.  And I think you know the answer to both of those.
>>
>> Irrelevant. You can conjure up all the reasons in the world to deprive
>> someone of his property, but if you do so you're a damn robber and criminal.
>>
>
> Ok, Jane and Mark independenty invent the same thing.  Jane did it
> a bit earlier and was first to file for a patnet.  Current law
> gives monoply to Jane and effectively deprives Mark from his invention.
> So, how can you avoid calling current system "strong-arm robbery"?

But how do you distinguish that situation from one in which Mark finds 
out what Jane has done, copies it and claims it as his own invention, 
and gets rich from it?  Doesn't Jane deserve some protection?

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7121 — Patents [Was: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ ? Network)

Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/11 2:55 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>> Kulin Remailer<remailer@reece.net.au>  wrote:
>>
>> Ok, Jane and Mark independenty invent the same thing.  Jane did it
>> a bit earlier and was first to file for a patnet.  Current law
>> gives monoply to Jane and effectively deprives Mark from his
>> invention.  So, how can you avoid calling current system
>> "strong-arm robbery"?
> 
> But how do you distinguish that situation from one in which Mark
> finds out what Jane has done, copies it and claims it as his own
> invention, and gets rich from it?

You can't.

> Doesn't Jane deserve some protection?

I don't think so.  Imagine how it would have been if, during almost
any point in the existence of the human race, people had been
prevented from using other people's inventions.  There probably
wouldn't even be a human race any more.  (No, Mark, you must not spin
wool to make a sweater.  That was Jane's idea, and she wants a chicken
for every sweater you make.  And if you don't pay her, the chief will
send his men to burn down your hut.)  More recently, consider what
would have happened if all the inventions that underpin the Internet
had been "protected".

Humanity has thrived on the basis of people building freely on each
other's ideas.  The (usually) stated purpose of the patent system is
to foster innovation, but it doesn't do so in the area of software.
Instead, it hands power to those who hold patents but don't actually
make anything, so can't be sued, thus impeding innovation.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7135 — Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ ? Network)

On Nov 4, 3:55 pm, Waldek Hebisch <hebi...@math.uni.wroc.pl> wrote:
> Kulin Remailer <remai...@reece.net.au> wrote:
> > Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinko.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Absolutely.  To grant to an individual a government-enforced monopoly
> > > is such an extreme act that it requires very strong justification.
>
> > True but unrelated to patents.
>
> > > The only possible justification is that it encourages people to
> > > develop and publish inventions when they wouldn't otherwise have done
> > > so: in other words, to "promote the progress of science and useful
> > > arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
> > > exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".
>
> > Horseshit. The justification is invention belongs to the inventor, anything
> > else is strong-arm robbery. Life, liberty, and property all existed before
> > governments, and the preservation of those 3 things are the only legitimate
> > province of government.
>
> > > The questions are, firstly, whether the inventions covered by software
> > > patents would not have been made, used, and published had there not
> > > been software patents.  And, on the other side, whether the
> > > enforcement of software patents impedes the progress of science and
> > > useful arts.  And I think you know the answer to both of those.
>
> > Irrelevant. You can conjure up all the reasons in the world to deprive
> > someone of his property, but if you do so you're a damn robber and criminal.
>
> Ok, Jane and Mark independenty invent the same thing.  Jane did it
> a bit earlier and was first to file for a patnet.  Current law
> gives monoply to Jane and effectively deprives Mark from his invention.
> So, how can you avoid calling current system "strong-arm robbery"?
>
> --
>                               Waldek Hebisch

A pioneer chooses a plot of land, some number of acres, and clears a
portion for his home and soon after files a claim with the
government.  Meanwhile someone else clears a portion of this land and
builds a second home unknown to the first.  When the first finds out
about the second he makes sure his claim has been processed and has
the law evict the second who now loses all his hard work clearing the
land...

That is the landscape of patents.  You can call it "strong-arm
robbery" but that doesn't make it wrong.  Is it right that the first
should lose profit to the "Johnny come lately" inventor?

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7264 — Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE ConsultaQ ? Network)

rickman wrote:
>> Ok, Jane and Mark independenty invent the same thing.  Jane did it
>> a bit earlier and was first to file for a patnet.  Current law
>> gives monoply to Jane and effectively deprives Mark from his
>> invention. So, how can you avoid calling current system "strong-arm
>> robbery"?
>>
>> --
>> Waldek Hebisch
> 
> A pioneer chooses a plot of land, some number of acres, and clears a
> portion for his home and soon after files a claim with the
> government.  Meanwhile someone else clears a portion of this land and
> builds a second home unknown to the first.  When the first finds out
> about the second he makes sure his claim has been processed and has
> the law evict the second who now loses all his hard work clearing the
> land...

Yes, and that's wrong.  A pioneer should be granted the land he cleared, 
no more.  His real work should be rewarded, not his paperwork.

> That is the landscape of patents.  You can call it "strong-arm
> robbery" but that doesn't make it wrong.  Is it right that the first
> should lose profit to the "Johnny come lately" inventor?

Apparently, the invention was pretty obvious, which is why two persons 
independently invented the same thing. At least this is my test on 
obviouseness: how often has it been invented independently?

Patents have an excuse (i.e. a "purpose for the better of everyone", 
which still follows a flawed logic, but at least there is one), and it's 
that in exchange to publishing what you invent, and therefore teaching 
the general public about your invention, you get a limited time 
monopoly.  You don't get the monopoly for inventing something, you get 
it for making your invention public.

The first thing that then becomes "obvious to one skilled in the art" 
are things that are easy to reverse engineer, i.e. never ever can be a 
trade secret.  This sort of invention should not get patent protection, 
because the teaching of the general public is by looking at the 
invention (things like "slide to unlock" or the "one click buy").

When teaching the general public is part of the process, e.g. when 
creating a standard, patents also should not be granted.  You can't get 
your technology into a standard without teaching the public, and in some 
areas, technology outside the standard isn't worth that much.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6906

Brad wrote:
> But handing out a "License to Extort" to everyone with a new idea
> (whether brilliant or half baked) is no way to run an economy.

Economists have already studied those monopolies, and two of them came 
to the solution that these monopolies should be abolished.  They wrote a 
real book about it, but it's also available for free to download:

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

For software, they come to the conclusion, that instead of abolishing 
copyright completely, a copyleft is a good idea, because it prevents 
trade secrets to take over.

The patent system definitely is the wrong approach.  Innovation is 
stipulated by competition, you have to be faster with your innovations 
than your competitor.  Innovations can be rewarded through public 
founded research programs (which is indeed often done), but not through 
monopolies.

As software experts, we can all say how stupid software patents are, but 
many people then say "so maybe pharmaceutic patents are ok".  In fact, 
these patents kill million people every year, which could be helped if 
they weren't there.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6903

On Oct 27, 7:07 pm, Thomas Womack <twom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> In article <613f5dcd-7fa7-4061-b6c0-6bd778a5c...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
>
> rickman  <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 26, 10:13=A0am, "rupertlssm...@googlemail.com"
> ><rupertlssm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15461732
>
> >> Completely barmy. There is definitely something very, very wrong with
> >> software patents.
>
> >> Rupert
>
> >I looked at this and I think it is a perfect example of how poor the
> >patent examination process is.  If your primary user interface is a
> >touch screen and you want to lock the device, how else would you
> >unlock the device than through a touch screen "gesture"?
>
> By typing a PIN on an on-screen keypad; by sweeping a finger around a
> pattern of blobs on-screen.  Apple's patent is on the slide-to-unlock
> bar; if they've spent a lot of time looking at alternate unlock
> mechanisms and determined that slide-to-unlock is in some usability
> sense the best, they should get to ask anyone else with
> slide-to-unlock for, say, a dollar per device.
>
> Otherwise how do you pay for usability research, where almost by
> definition the result will feel intuitively obvious and be used by
> every device?
>
> Tom

I'm not anti-patent.  I think patents are not just useful, but
essential to stimulating innovation.  But the Apple patent (at least
what was written here) is not about a slider bar.  It is about a
"gesture".  In my opinion that is so vague (to the point of being
obvious) that it should be unenforceable.  As I said in the part of my
message that you snipped, all Google or anyone else has to do is to
not call it a gesture.  If Apple insists that all methods of contact
with the display would be a gesture then your suggestions would also
be gestures.

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6909

rickman wrote:
> I'm not anti-patent.  I think patents are not just useful, but
> essential to stimulating innovation.  But the Apple patent (at least
> what was written here) is not about a slider bar.  It is about a
> "gesture".  In my opinion that is so vague (to the point of being
> obvious) that it should be unenforceable.  As I said in the part of my
> message that you snipped, all Google or anyone else has to do is to
> not call it a gesture.  If Apple insists that all methods of contact
> with the display would be a gesture then your suggestions would also
> be gestures.

No, that's not the way the patent system works.  This will go to court, 
and a jury of 12 zombie farmers in Texas who just came from their 
pumpkin patches will rule on this, and of course Apple will insist that 
anything is a gesture.  Afterwards, Apple will sue the pumpkin farmers 
for violating their trademark, because a pumpkin looks somewhat like an 
apple.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6931

On Oct 28, 4:50 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
> rickman wrote:
> > I'm not anti-patent.  I think patents are not just useful, but
> > essential to stimulating innovation.  But the Apple patent (at least
> > what was written here) is not about a slider bar.  It is about a
> > "gesture".  In my opinion that is so vague (to the point of being
> > obvious) that it should be unenforceable.  As I said in the part of my
> > message that you snipped, all Google or anyone else has to do is to
> > not call it a gesture.  If Apple insists that all methods of contact
> > with the display would be a gesture then your suggestions would also
> > be gestures.
>
> No, that's not the way the patent system works.  This will go to court,
> and a jury of 12 zombie farmers in Texas who just came from their
> pumpkin patches will rule on this, and of course Apple will insist that
> anything is a gesture.  Afterwards, Apple will sue the pumpkin farmers
> for violating their trademark, because a pumpkin looks somewhat like an
> apple.
>
> --
> Bernd Paysan
> "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"http://bernd-paysan.de/

Reductio ad absurdum.

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7063

IEEE sponsored Town Hall meeting/lunch/workshop Nov. 5 - Patent Reform
and  YOU

Congress has recently enacted sweeping patent reform that is adverse
to small inventors and entrepreneurs.  The IEEE National Capital Area
Consultants Network and Baltimore Consultants Network want you to know
what has happened and how patent reform will affect the individual or
small-business entrepreneur. We have put together a Town Hall meeting
with a panel session and workshop.  The event is open to the public,
and IEEE student members are especially welcomed to participate.
Lunch and a networking reception are included.  IEEE Student members
may bring a guest at no additional cost.  Door prizes will be awarded!


The NCACN welcomes IP experts Dr. Lee Hollaar and Dr. Amelia Morani
who will present the current landscape of U.S. patent law and lead the
workshop.


Your admission ticket includes a complimentary lunch and admission to
the networking reception. IEEE members can preregister to attend at a
discounted price of $10, and IEEE student members will receive one
guest admission as part of their $10 ticket price. IEEE discounted
prices are available only by preregistration until 6pm on November 4.
General admission is offered for $20 per person by preregistration and
at the door. All registered attendees will be eligible for door
prizes.


WHERE:

Loyola University Columbia, MD Graduate Campus
8890 MaGaw Road Room 260
Columbia, MD 21045


DIRECTIONS:

http://www.loyola.edu/facilitiesmanagement/columbia/directions.html


WHEN:

Saturday November 5


10am - Panel session, lunch, and discussion
 2pm  -  Networking reception


COST:

$20 - general admission
$10 - IEEE member or guest (expires Nov. 4 6pm)
$10 - IEEE student member with 1 complimentary guest admission
(expires Nov. 4 6pm)


RSVP:

NCACN registration portal: http://www.ieee-consultants.org
OR
IEEE vtools registration link: http://meetings.vtools.ieee.org/meeting_view/list_meeting/8771


Thank you, and we hope to see you there!
Monica Mallini, PE


YOUR HOSTS:

IEEE National Capital Area Consultants Network
IEEE Baltimore Consultants Network
IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology (Wash/NoVA/Balt
Chapter)
IEEE Computer Society (Wash/Nova and Balt Chapters)
IEEE Region 2 Professional Activities Committee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7139

You guys missed a really great discussion today.  We had to expert
presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office.  They
discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here.  I only wish I
had taken better notes.  I did get the chance to speak directly with
Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent.  One is
to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
would represent prior art.  This is attached at an application or even
a granted patent.  If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by
filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
court.  There were other things that can be done and they don't
require you to be a lawyer or use one.

I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
the USPTO representatives.  Probably the most useful thing that was
said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
profit.  Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.

BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year.  So it
is just like an election, file early and file often!

Rick


On Oct 24, 3:59 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Co-sponsored by
> IEEE NCA Consultants Network,
> Baltimore Consultants Network,
> Society on Social Implications of Technology,
> Baltimore and NoVA/Wash. Computer Society,
> and Region 2 PACE Committee
>
> Congress has enacted sweeping patent reform that is adverse to small
> inventors and entrepreneurs. How will this affect you? Let’s explore
> what the future holds with our panel of experts. Lunch and networking
> reception are included. Student members may bring a guest at no
> additional cost. Door prizes! Additional details at the link below.
>
> When: Saturday, November 5 10am-2pm
>
> Where: Loyola University Graduate Centers Room 260
> 8890 McGaw Road Columbia, MD 21045 USA
>
> Cost: $10 IEEE members (advance), $20 general
>
> Web Page:www.ieee-consultants.org
>
> Registration:http://meetings.vtools.ieee.org/meeting_view/list_meeting/8771
>
> Panelists: Dr. Lee Hollaar, Dr. Amelia Morani
>
> We are still looking for a panelist who is a consultant able to speak
> regarding the impact of this new law.  Anyone available in the area?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7154

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
wrote:

>You guys missed a really great discussion today.  We had to expert
>presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office.  They
>discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here.  I only wish I
>had taken better notes.  I did get the chance to speak directly with
>Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent.  One is
>to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
>would represent prior art.  This is attached at an application or even
>a granted patent.  If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by
>filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
>faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
>court.  There were other things that can be done and they don't
>require you to be a lawyer or use one.
>
>I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
>the USPTO representatives.  Probably the most useful thing that was
>said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
>Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
>profit.  Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.
>
>BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year.  So it
>is just like an election, file early and file often!
>
>Rick

Thanks for the update.   I wish I could have been there.

Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
processed?   What's to stop someone from filing something only
marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent?  Sounds
like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
kill a good patent.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web