tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post1011259156033368915..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 754/09 – Another Brick In The Wallorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-89107187183808739692013-11-01T10:27:35.129+01:002013-11-01T10:27:35.129+01:00It is unsurprisingly. The decision and reasoning a...It is unsurprisingly. The decision and reasoning are completely in line with what 3.5.01 have refused with an increasingly harsh line over the past 18 months. <br /><br />I'm not convinced that T1326/06 is really that contradictory in this case. The crux of the argument here is that the underlying task is non-technical and therefore the maths behind the solution lack technical character. In T1326/06 the task "safe exchange of messages" was deemed technical and therefore the mathematical method have technical character.DrZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-12539120840798544402013-11-01T10:16:32.355+01:002013-11-01T10:16:32.355+01:00Without looking at the decision I would bet a subs...Without looking at the decision I would bet a substantial amount of money this was issued by 3.5.01DrZnoreply@blogger.com