|
|
|
|
|
by Natsu
3926 days ago
|
|
So is it obvious that n=1 is included or excluded by this context? The patent holder believed that it obviously was patented by them until they realized that would be problematic. Then they decided that it obviously was not covered by their patent. I don't think the courts should play this game any more than your compiler should simply decide it can figure out what you really meant whenever your program contains an error. |
|