Here's an excerpt from the letter I sent to my attorney, FYI.

> The mailing did include the entire text of the patent.  I didn't try to read 
> the claims, of which there are 56.  However, skimming through the background 
> information, it's clear that the patent was originally intended to cover 
> consumer point-of-sale terminals that produce a printed or diskette copy of 
> something, and it seems to me that the claims of covering all forms of 
> on-demand electronic distribution are a combination of bluster and a very 
> broad reading of the patent.  For example, the patent text repeatedly uses 
> the term "material object" to describe the copy, which it seems to me would 
> have to be stretched pretty far to cover electronic-only downloading 
> (although it's my understanding that the defense in the recent Tennessee 
> entrapment case involving downloading X-rated GIFs from California tried to 
> persuade a court that no "material object" was transported across state 
> lines, and lost).

-- 

L. Peter Deutsch          |       Aladdin Enterprises :::: ghost@aladdin.com
203 Santa Margarita Ave.  | tel. +1-415-322-0103 (AM only); fax +1-415-322-1734
Menlo Park, CA 94025      |  -&-  Artifex Software Inc. :: tech@arsoft.com
          "Implementation is the sincerest form of flattery."