On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 01:13 -0400, Paul wrote: > Suppose I discover a much better method of balancing the checkbook. It > is such a great improvement over well-known methods that I truly deserve > the patent I get for it. > > That means I can prevent you from using the method with pencil and > paper, with mechanical calculators and also with computer software. So I > don't need to patent any software, do I? > That depends on where I am located as to whether you can or cant. And that was my point, the laws dont apply uniformly across the globe, a patent doesnt mean as much in some places and in others its totally unenforcable.
> I really don't see how any government can afford to properly evaluate > patent applications with the fees they collect. They charge the same fee > for salad spinners and codecs. > And you get about the same results, there are some really silly patents out there. Some as simple as 2 C instructions. > I haven't seen any strong arguments here that the g.729 algorithm itself > is not deserving of a patent. > I didnt know anyone was trying to make that argument only comments on whether its enforcable or not in certain jurisdictions. Two totally different things. -- Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel UK +44 870 340 4605 Germany +49 801 777 555 3402 US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200 FreeWorldDialup: 635378
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Biz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
