| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 48230 | 2004-08-17 11:20:00 | SCO is looking a bit limbless now. | mikebartnz (21) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 262593 | 2004-08-17 11:20:00 | More here (www.groklaw.net) about the SCO IBM case. | mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 262594 | 2004-08-17 11:32:00 | Seems the punt SCO took isn't going to pay off ... hoorah for the free ... Now if we could only help Telecom here to "free up" the loop. ;-) | fairway (5932) | ||
| 262595 | 2004-08-17 12:04:00 | Boy oh boy, I bet there are some mad as hell SCO investors right about now. Fancy giving their IP away under the GPL, it's enough to make a strong man cry :^O Cheers Murray ;P |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 262596 | 2004-08-17 16:33:00 | Oh darn - looks like the cheque is not in the mail after all. That's really sad,, I wish I could show my sorrow by some means. Yeah, - Right. R2 |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 262597 | 2004-08-18 00:34:00 | Don't know how this one (home.att.net) slipped under my radar, a big fat zero for attentiveness. Cheers Murray ;P |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 262598 | 2004-08-18 01:28:00 | > Don't know how this > one (home.att.net > s.htm) slipped under my radar, a big fat > zero for attentiveness. Immediately you are in breach of the patent Murray! You should say "a big fat three minus three for inatteniveness" Its not hard to accommodate this requirement, by using the terminology of three minus two, or three minus three. Its more difficult when the numerals become encompassed in a word though, the word "stone" becomes stthreeminustwone, but this then introduces yet another unintended reference to a patented word. Therefore some flexibility is needed, and the word "stone" should be "stfourminusthreene". I am comfortable with the concept though. Any thoughts? |
godfather (25) | ||
| 262599 | 2004-08-18 01:38:00 | I think you should patent it. | metla (154) | ||
| 262600 | 2004-08-18 01:38:00 | gsevenminussixfath.... | TonyF (246) | ||
| 262601 | 2004-08-18 01:55:00 | > > Don't know how this > > > one (home.att.net > > > s.htm) slipped under my radar, a big fat > > zero for attentiveness. > > Immediately you are in breach of the patent Murray! > > You should say "a big fat three minus three for > inatteniveness" Well done that lad at the back of the class, you get a tthreeplusthreeplusfouren out of tthreeplusthreeplusfouren for attentiveness. > Its not hard to accommodate this requirement, by > using the terminology of three minus two, or three > minus three. > > Its more difficult when the numerals become > encompassed in a word though, the word "stone" > becomes stthreeminustwone, but this then introduces > yet another unintended reference to a patented word. > > Therefore some flexibility is needed, and the word > "stone" should be "stfourminusthreene". > > I am comfortable with the concept though. Any > thoughts? Yes, I can see an immediate benefit to me with regard to my charge out rate. I'll have to increase it by at least threeminustwo hundred and twenty two dollars to avoid impinging on the patent, + GST of course which raises other difficulties, rounding/down up may have to get a bit looser to comply. Alternatively I could reduce the rate by a minimum of XX (now now, not too much info) but that would hardly be fair to my clients as they would fell they were not getting a top rated service. Think I'll buy shares in a calculator company now, I envisage current models being pretty useless under the new counting regime. Cheers Murray ;P |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 262602 | 2004-08-18 01:59:00 | Just be careful . I am sending the bills out soon to all those who have used my trademarked words on the Internet . The words involved are the™, a™, and and™ . A nominal fee of 1c for each use for each of those words should make me richer than Bill G . |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||