🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7308:Mar605:56:5291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>In article <1991Mar5.035406.11262@visix.com> amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
>> foo@elaine20.stanford.edu (castor fu) writes:
>> >One of the things which I haven't noticed being emphasized
}> >is that the "backing store patent" is part of a patent relating to the BLIT,
}> >a remote graphics windowing TERMINAL.  
}> I was wondering if that was the case.  This points even more strongly at
}> Pike's scheme, which was done for the BLIT.  I'm beginning to suspect we
}> just have an overzealous lawyer in AT&T's legal department...
}Just because the patent has to do with a terminal does not mean that it
}cannot apply to X. A patent always applies to equivalents of the
}invention.

NONSENSE! A patent applies to EXACTLY what appears in the claims - no
more, no less.


-- 
           *Mike Waters    AA4MW/7  waters@nddsun1.sps.mot.com *
Marriage is the only adventure open to the cowardly.
		-- Voltaire