Acacia patents pre-compilation and linking - Linux

This is a discussion on Acacia patents pre-compilation and linking - Linux ; The patented technology generally relates to software object pre- compilation and linking in software compilers. The technology may be used in the development of application software such as operating systems, business software, video games, Internet commerce, and enterprise software. http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/...20News/812103/...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Acacia patents pre-compilation and linking

  1. Acacia patents pre-compilation and linking


    The patented technology generally relates to software object pre-
    compilation and linking in software compilers. The technology may be
    used in the development of application software such as operating
    systems, business software, video games, Internet commerce, and
    enterprise software.


    http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/...20News/812103/


  2. Re: Acacia patents pre-compilation and linking

    After takin' a swig o' grog, nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    >
    > The patented technology generally relates to software object pre-
    > compilation and linking in software compilers. The technology may be
    > used in the development of application software such as operating
    > systems, business software, video games, Internet commerce, and
    > enterprise software.
    >

    >
    > http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/...20News/812103/


    This means nothing. I mean that the note at that site doesn't convey
    what they have.

    If it is simple compilation and linking, I think there about 40 years of
    prior art there.

    --
    Tux rox!

  3. Re: Acacia patents pre-compilation and linking

    On 2007-11-14, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > Go ahead and prove it. Got a million dollar to spare on lawyers on a trial?
    > Therein lies the issue with the USPTO. Once a junk patent is granted, it take


    Can you post the patent number? The article cited did not list it,
    making it very hard to tell what is covered. I'm assuming you know the
    number and have looked at the patent, and are not just blithering on
    again about something that you know nothing about...

  4. shut up cunt ...

    On 14 Nov, 04:44, Tim Smith wrote:

    > Can you post the patent number? The article cited did not list it,
    > making it very hard to tell what is covered ..


    That is correct sir, the article didn't list it, do you have the
    number ...

    > I'm assuming you know the number and have looked at the patent, and are not just blithering on again about something that you know nothing about...


    You assume incorrectly, and enough with the stalking you lying cunt of
    a MICROS~1 shill ...



  5. Re: Acacia patents pre-compilation and linking

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    >> If it is simple compilation and linking, I think there about 40 years of
    >> prior art there.

    >
    > Go ahead and prove it. Got a million dollar to spare on lawyers on a trial?
    > Therein lies the issue with the USPTO. Once a junk patent is granted, it take
    > a HUGE amount of effort to rubbish it.


    Agreed.

    And they think Free software is dangerous!

    > The question remains: can the
    > US 'infect' other countries with its laws? Can enough politicians be bribed
    > into it? The USPTO (and American innovation) will die because of this. The
    > bigger question to ask if whether other countries will be taken down _along_
    > with the US, in which case we're entering a scientific dark age where lawyers
    > replace scientists.


    It could well be happening.

    And the depletion of oil could well be the final blow.



    --
    Tux rox!

  6. Re: shut up cunt ...

    On Nov 14, 4:01 am, Doug Mentohl wrote:
    > On 14 Nov, 04:44, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    > > Can you post the patent number? The article cited did not list it,
    > > making it very hard to tell what is covered ..

    >
    > That is correct sir, the article didn't list it, do you have the
    > number ...
    >
    > > I'm assuming you know the number and have looked at the patent, and are not just blithering on again about something that you know nothing about...

    >
    > You assume incorrectly, and enough with the stalking you lying cunt of
    > a MICROS~1 shill ...


    I wish you wouldn't use this kind of language. It's offensive
    regardless of who it is used against, and it makes linux advocacy look
    bad.


+ Reply to Thread