Microsoft Patents 'IsNot'

[Piet van Oostrum]

>>>>> Lenard Lindstrom <len-1 at telus.net> (LL) wrote:


LL> I would hope that a rewrite of Claim-2 of the patent is required before
LL> the patent is accept (if it is not outright rejected). Claim-2 is too
LL> vague to be meaningful. Proper definitions of "BASIC" and "derived" are
LL> missing. I imaging the patent is intended to protect Visual Basic.NET
LL> rather than restrict unrelated languages like Delphi and Python
LL> anyways.

If it would be applied to Python there would be enough prior art anyway.
And they forgot to put the word 'invention' between quotes.
How stupid can they become?
-- 
Piet van Oostrum <piet at cs.uu.nl>
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP]
Private email: P.van.Oostrum at hccnet.nl