🚀 go-pugleaf

<telford@xenon.triode.net.au> wrote in message
news:10hc7aasijfup2f@corp.supernews.com...
> _ <_@_._> wrote

>>> Our patent system will NOT be changed by the FTA and whatever
>>> silly stuff applys to the US system, APPLYS NOW ANYWAY, fuckwit.

>> Not really true.  It's harder to get granted s/w patents here than in the US.

> It seems that US precedents have started being accepted as
> common law in Australia, with regards to patent issues anyhow.

Pig ignorant bullshit.

> There never was an actual Australian landmark case where
> software patents switched from outlawed to allowable -- 
> instead we just accepted that the USPTO was doing it so
> we should start following along (i.e. Australia accepted the
> US Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Diehr and Lutton).

More pig ignorant bullshit on the general question being discussed.

> Strictly speaking, this is NOT backed by Australian legislation
> and software patents might be challenged on the basis that no
> Australian statutory law states that software is patentable,

Mindless stuff.

> and our law explicitly states that
> mathematical formulas are NOT patentable.

Software aint a mathematical formula, fool.

> If the FTA comes into effect, our courts will have some real
> legislation instructing them to do whatever the USA is doing.

Complete and utter pack of lies. Even someone
as stupid as you should be able to grasp that the
most the FTA actually does is waffle on about

    Each Party shall endeavour to reduce differences in law
    and practice between their respective systems, including
    in respect of differences in determining the rights to an
    invention, the prior art effect of applications for patents,

and even someone as stupid as you should be able to grasp
that does NOT say that WE have to follow the US approach.
Why dont THEY have to follow OUR approach instead ?

>>>> He said huge software houses had the resources to obtain patents.

>>> And most dont bother, even in the US system, fool.

>> Rubbish. You obviously don't follow it closely enough.

> Hmmm, a quick search at http://www.uspto.gov/

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     [US Patent & Trademark Office, Patent Full Text and Image Database]
>
>       [Home] [Boolean Search] [Manual Search] [Number Search] [Help]
>
>                  [NEXT_LIST] [Bottom] [View Shopping Cart]
>
>    Searching 1976 to present...
>    Results of Search in 1976 to present db for:
>    Microsoft: 22165 patents.
>    Hits 1 through 50 out of 22165
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Try it for yourself if you don't believe me. Could
> anyone really be fool enough to say that huge
> software houses are not interested in patents?

MS doesnt qualify as MOST any time soon, fool.

>>> Its done and dusted, fool.

>> Yep.

> Not until it passes federal parliament

It will, you watch.

And we might well see some tightening of
our patent law to get it thru the senate too.

> -- we are a parliamentary democracy remember, and hey,
> there is an election coming up. Ho... think about that,
> citizens using their vote to do something meaningful
> and exercise choice in how their country is governed.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
the voters couldnt give a flying red fuck about something
as abstruse as patent law and software patents.