www/philosophy stallman-mec-india.html

[Dora Scilipoti]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Dora Scilipoti <dora>   12/06/23 11:51:37

Modified files:
        philosophy     : stallman-mec-india.html 

Log message:
        Fixing typos (RT #761304).

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/stallman-mec-india.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.22&r2=1.23

Patches:
Index: stallman-mec-india.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/stallman-mec-india.html,v
retrieving revision 1.22
retrieving revision 1.23
diff -u -b -r1.22 -r1.23
--- stallman-mec-india.html     10 Jun 2012 08:06:17 -0000      1.22
+++ stallman-mec-india.html     23 Jun 2012 11:50:37 -0000      1.23
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@
 whole field, name the question with a term that prejudges what kind of 
 answer you use.</p> 
  
-<p> But second and and even more fundamental, that term is actually a 
+<p> But second and even more fundamental, that term is actually a 
 catchall for totally different areas of law, including copyrights, 
 patents, trademarks, trade secrets and various other things as well. Now 
 these areas of the law in fact have almost nothing in common.  What the 
@@ -395,8 +395,8 @@
 was another superior format available.</p> 
  
 <p> Even when a patent is rather narrow, avoiding it can be very hard. 
-The Postscript specification includes LZW compression, which we in our 
-implementation of postscript cannot implement.  We support another kind 
+The PostScript specification includes LZW compression, which we in our 
+implementation of postScript cannot implement.  We support another kind 
 of compression in some sense that is not correct, even though it does the 
 useful job.  So, even a narrow patent is not always feasible to avoid.</p> 
  
@@ -629,7 +629,7 @@
  
 <p> So you can't expect sensible results from that, but there are 
 situations where, when you look at the past record, you see that there is 
-a chance to invalidate a certain patent.  I's worth the try, at least 
+a chance to invalidate a certain patent.  It's worth the try, at least 
 to investigate.  But the actual court cases happen to be extremely 
 expensive.</p> 
  
@@ -875,8 +875,8 @@
  
 <p> Today we have some economic research showing mathematically how this 
 can happen.  You can find it in <a 
-href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org";>www.researchoninnovation.org
-</a>.  I am not completely sure of the name of the paper, but it's one 
+href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org";>www.researchoninnovation.org</a>.  
+I am not completely sure of the name of the paper, but it's one 
 that shows that in a field where incremental innovation is typical, 
 having a patent system can result in slower progress.  In other words the 
 system produces counter-intuitive results that are the opposite of what it 
@@ -972,7 +972,7 @@
 software patents, the public policy question was not considered at all. 
 Nobody even asked whether it was a good idea to have software patents. 
 The Supreme Court made a decision which was then twisted around by an 
-appeals court, and ever since then, there was software patents.</p> 
+appeals court, and ever since then, there were software patents.</p> 
  
 <p> But when Europe started to consider officially authorizing software 
 patents a few years ago, public opposition started to rise and became 
@@ -1247,7 +1247,7 @@
   know you are not going to get sued as long as you wrote the program 
   yourself. 
  
-  <p> That's the it way was before software patents.  If you wrote the 
+  <p> That's the way it was before software patents.  If you wrote the 
   program yourself there was nothing to sue you about.  Today you can 
   write the program yourself, it may even be a useful and innovative 
   program, but because you didn't reinvent the whole field, you use some 
@@ -1558,7 +1558,7 @@
 how would you define these machines, because these days you have a lot 
 of custom made handheld devices etc.  Now some way&hellip;</dt> 
  
-  <dd><b>A</b>: No, hand held computers are general purpose when they are 
+  <dd><b>A</b>: No, handheld computers are general purpose when they are 
   not designed to carry out a specific computation or a specific physical 
   process.  They're general purpose computers.  They have general purpose 
   computer chips in them.</dd> 
@@ -2124,7 +2124,7 @@
  
 <p> Updated: 
 <!-- timestamp start --> 
-$Date: 2012/06/10 08:06:17 $ 
+$Date: 2012/06/23 11:50:37 $ 
 <!-- timestamp end --> 
 </p> 
 </div>