On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 01:25:27PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/16/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please remember that this is my answer to your question of what _I_ would
do, I didn't say what Debian should do.
[...}
But you're telling me you won't at least call
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 05:54:40PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Do you really think it's fair to characterize as pro-patenters
people who are simply pointing out:
the absence of a public policy rationale for denying the same
sort of encouragement to applied researchers (and their
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me the distinction is clear: you have to add something to the
algorithm before you arrive at patentable matter. You apparently
consider the addition (a computing device with a memory) to be
irrelevant, and hence you don't see a distinction.
The addition should be
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If you provide the program loaded into a computer, ready to execute,
then the court may likely hold that you infringe. If you publish
a printed piece of paper with the program's source, then you likely
do not infringe.
Like I said somewhere, non-tech-savvy judges
Michael Edwards wrote:
Dualism is on the retreat,
processes and machines are on an equal footing, and what makes
something not an abstract idea as such is that it be susceptible of
industrial application to reliably achieve a particular useful
result.
In practice, that's another distinction
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me the distinction is clear: you have to add something to the
algorithm before you arrive at patentable matter. You apparently
consider the addition (a computing device with a memory) to be
irrelevant, and hence you don't see a
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If you provide the program loaded into a computer, ready to execute,
then the court may likely hold that you infringe. If you publish
a printed piece of paper with the program's source, then you likely
do not infringe.
Like I said
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/20/05, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The law says so: articles 52(2) and (3) EPC.
http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/e/ar52.html
Understood that that's the statutory basis for the subject matter test
(parallel to 35 USC 101),
MJ Ray wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The law says so: articles 52(2) and (3) EPC.
http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/e/ar52.html
If the EPO is an artefact of the EPC, it can't be the people
who wrote that law so why is EPO reinterpreting the EPC?
Because
On 7/21/05, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The example I gave earlier is
http://legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/t950931eu1.pdf
which is European patent application
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?IDX=EP0332770
that was rejected for being a business method as such. And
if
On 7/21/05, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
US Patent class 705 is full of such patents where the examiner
wasn't on the ball. Only very recently have I seen US office
actions where the examiner talks about technological progress.
Oh, I agree with you completely that this is one of
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/19/05, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's basically how patent law works in every area. You can
publish the knowledge but not apply the knowledge to make, use
or sell a working device or actual product. And a book that
humans can read is not a
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:10:10 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
More like, the expression in .obj is patented, but the expression
in .PDF is not. Feel free to publish papers; don't distribute
devices that execute the algorithm disclosed in those papers.
And how is
Summary: I can still find no substantive difference between US and
EPO law on software patentability.
On 7/20/05, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip good stuff]
For contributory infringement you need additional evidence.
Contributory infringement is knowingly selling or supplying
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is exactly the same: European patent law does not
exclude patents on mathematical methods, but only on mathematical
methods _as such_. Apparently this is not the
On 20 Jul 2005 23:14:28 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the EPO is an artefact of the EPC, it can't be the people
who wrote that law so why is EPO reinterpreting the EPC?
Is it actually known whether the drafters meant the claimed
you can patent maths as part of a machine view rather
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I agree with you that the distinction may seem artificial. But it
does seem logical to me to say you can't patent A XOR B but you can
patent a computer program that does that.
If you can patent the class of computer programs which do A XOR B,
you have patented the abstract
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Then the formula remains
public domain; you just can't make, use or sell a program that
implements the formula. Were the formula patented, then you couldn't
even publish a textbook.
Unfortunately, that's a distinction without a difference.
On 7/19/05, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arnaud Engelfriet wrote:
Here's a claim that would _not_ be maths as such under European law:
A method of encrypting a bitstream A using a key B that is the
same length as A, comprising computing A XOR B.
That *is* math. If a judge has
On 7/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you're missing Arnoud's point. It's not math, it's an
application of math to the problem domain of message encryption. That
makes it statutory subject matter for patenting, which math as such is
not.
it is rather unclear here.
On 7/19/05, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Unfortunately, that's a distinction without a difference. If you're
prohibited from making a computer program implementing the algorithm, you're
prohibited from writing a formal description of the algorithm,
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:10:10 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
More like, the expression in .obj is patented, but the expression
in .PDF is not. Feel free to publish papers; don't distribute
devices that execute the algorithm disclosed in those papers.
And how is literate programming dealt with?
I wrote:
I am not pro-software-patent. I think that the USPTO (and, from the
look of it, the EPO) are doing a profoundly incompetent job of
filtering out the trivial and the erroneous from _all_ kinds of patent
applications, not just those which permit an implementation in terms
of a Von
I wrote, with regard to aspersions cast by Nathanael on the competence
and consistency of judicial opinions in intellectual property arenas:
I am glad that I do not live in the dystopic fantasy world you
describe, with incompetent judges obsessed by sophomoric deductions
from Plato and easily
Software patents are not legal in Europe. Period. The European
patent convention from 1972 explicitly excludes software from
patentability. Attempts to pass legislation that would have
allowed software to become patentable have failed. The worst
thing we could do now is give in to the
On 7/18/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ditto, for Brasil. Software patents are explicitly excluded in our
Industrial Property (= Patents + Trademarks) Act (Law 9279/96),
section 10, V:
[snip]
Obviously, only inventions (or utility models) can be patented.
Now that
Summary: it looks to me like current US and European law on the
patentability of math, software, and business methods are already
very, very closely aligned. Gripe, if you like, about the USPTO's
ignorance of the prior art in software-intensive fields, and about the
unholy alliance between
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I don't know of any caselaw in any European country in the past ten
years that says This European patent is invalid because it's a
computer program as such.
That's not the caselaw you're looking for.
The caselaw you're looking for is This European patent is invalid
This came up in the course of a curiosity-driven review of the patent
status of various audio codecs, and also in a recent MPlayer thread.
It would probably be wise not to wait for a cease-and-desist letter
before quietly discontinuing the distribution of libdts. See
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:44:11AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
This came up in the course of a curiosity-driven review of the patent
status of various audio codecs, and also in a recent MPlayer thread.
It would probably be wise not to wait for a cease-and-desist letter
before quietly
On 7/16/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Software patents are not legal in Europe. Period. The European patent
convention from 1972 explicitly excludes software from patentability.
Attempts to pass legislation that would have allowed software to become
patentable have failed. The
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Is there no presumptively valid standard in any country in Europe --
or does it not apply to patents that actually issue under that
country's laws, unless and until they are demonstrated to be invalid
in court?
There's no explicit law that says patent are presumed
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 03:41:03AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/16/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Software patents are not legal in Europe. Period. The European patent
convention from 1972 explicitly excludes software from patentability.
Attempts to pass legislation
On 7/16/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DTS Inc. used a European patent to go after VideoLAN.
One with a US equivalent, paint by numbers. Presumably they used its
EP number in the CD to the VideoLAN folks because they're in France.
C'est la même chose.
Defend them (in court if
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 06:16:14AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/16/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Defend them (in court if necessary).
At what odds? Why pick this battle?
According to Mr Ravicher the odds are not that bad. Why give in before
the battle even started?
On 7/16/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to Mr Ravicher the odds are not that bad. Why give in before
the battle even started? What if there is no problem? Software will not
remain free if you don't defend it and you will not keep your freedom
if you are not willing to
36 matches
Mail list logo
