Comments on: There Needs to be a Device http://techrights.org/2007/02/22/there-needs-to-be-a-device/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:41:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.14 By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2007/02/22/there-needs-to-be-a-device/comment-page-1/#comment-373 Fri, 23 Feb 2007 03:36:23 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/02/22/there-needs-to-be-a-device/#comment-373 Probably all about greed. But the greedy suddenly feels threatened when others who are greedy go after him/her.

]]> By: Draconishinobi http://techrights.org/2007/02/22/there-needs-to-be-a-device/comment-page-1/#comment-372 Fri, 23 Feb 2007 03:04:23 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/02/22/there-needs-to-be-a-device/#comment-372 Then, why do software patents exist ?

]]> By: miguel http://techrights.org/2007/02/22/there-needs-to-be-a-device/comment-page-1/#comment-371 Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:07:34 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/02/22/there-needs-to-be-a-device/#comment-371 Man, you should put this on the head lines “Microsoft attorney says software isn’t patentable”

JUSTICE STEVENS: Your time is up, but I want to ask you one yes or no question. In your view is software patentable?
MR. JOSEFFER: Standing alone in and of itself, no.

]]>