Bob Wyman scripsit:
> 2. We must stop defining extension mechanisms to ensure that
> the use of any extension clearly prevents the extender from claiming
> that an extended format is an instance of the named base format. (In
> this way, if someone adds proprietary extensions to XML, HTML, etc.
> then we would be able to say: "It is *not* HTML. Thus, the patent
> doesn't apply."
This isn't going to work. As Abraham Lincoln told us, calling a dog's tail
a leg doesn't make it one (and so a dog has only four legs even if you call
its tail a leg). Judges aren't computers, and aren't going to be fooled
by this simple-minded trick: if two things are substantially similar, a
change of name won't get you out from under the scope of the patent.
IANAL, TINLA.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"?
