[ih] another Internet history site

[Łukasz Bromirski]

> On 11 Nov 2017, at 20:02, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> 
> that is good news - but the reasoning applied by the court is very disappointing. The conclusion is based on inability to prove or disprove statements the plaintiff considered defamatory. At no point does the court get to the heart of the matter: that the plaintiff did not invent email as we know it - only that he wrote a program in 1978 that he called "email". Somehow, I wish that the historical facts associated with electronic mail as most of us know it could have been applied to undo the plaintiffs repeated and, in my opinion, misleading assertions. Particularly egregious is the conflating of copyright with patent and "first to invent" concept. Incidentally, current patent law has the unfortunate provision that patents now go to "first to file" and not "first to invent" although the "prior art" argument presumably can derail an inappropriate patent claim.

EFF has a ‘stupid patent of a month’ award, maybe that would fall within their
charter to pursue such people/organizations?

—
Łukasz Bromirski
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 874 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20171111/64d70393/attachment.asc>