8 Dec
2005
8 Dec
'05
7:49 p.m.
On 12/8/05, Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 14:43 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
Lee,
I don't know the answers to your questions but I do not believe
that I said that the patent was "obvious and therefore invalid". IANAL
and wouldn't want to suggest anything like that.
Please note that this may or may not be considered a 'software
patent' as disk streaming is involved.
With best regards,
Mark
Anyone intersted in further study could easily
discover the U.S.
patent numbers that were originally licensed to NemeSys. (Not Tascam!)
If someone cannot do that for themselves then they probably could
figure out someone who does know the numbers and ask so they could
read the patents for themselves.
Please note that while I am greatly disappointed that all of this has
happened I still thinkLS is a really great piece of work and I, for
one, still have great respect for all the folks that have done this
work.
If the issue really is a patent dispute involving a patent that is 1) a
software patent and 2) obvious and therefore invalid, wouldn't this be
the first case where a corporation went after a free software project
for software patent infringement? And if this were the case shouldn't
there be a huge uproar going on?
Lee