On 12/8/05, Lee Revell <rlrevell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 14:43 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: > > Anyone intersted in further study could easily discover the U.S. > > patent numbers that were originally licensed to NemeSys. (Not Tascam!) > > If someone cannot do that for themselves then they probably could > > figure out someone who does know the numbers and ask so they could > > read the patents for themselves. > > > > Please note that while I am greatly disappointed that all of this has > > happened I still thinkLS is a really great piece of work and I, for > > one, still have great respect for all the folks that have done this > > work. > > If the issue really is a patent dispute involving a patent that is 1) a > software patent and 2) obvious and therefore invalid, wouldn't this be > the first case where a corporation went after a free software project > for software patent infringement? And if this were the case shouldn't > there be a huge uproar going on? > > Lee Lee, I don't know the answers to your questions but I do not believe that I said that the patent was "obvious and therefore invalid". IANAL and wouldn't want to suggest anything like that. Please note that this may or may not be considered a 'software patent' as disk streaming is involved. With best regards, Mark