On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:19:33 +0100, Kevin Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Basically, a patent could be granted in the USA and, by way of > treaty, be registered in all signatory countries. The patent may > not actually be valid in all of the countries mentioned in the patent, > depending upon the local patent rules.
Its not only the patent treaties that will get you. Those are pretty harmless anyway because if you file under the PCT, then you only have 31 months from the priority date in which you must apply for a patent in the member states of the treaty one by one. However, there are ITU treaties and various trade agreements that can make a patent relevant in countries where it has not been granted, through the backdoor so to speak. Again, you have to get professional advice from a lawyer who specialises in these things. You cannot just read some website and make up your own opinion. If it was that simple, then lawyers wouldn't have to go to law school and they wouldn't be paid as much as they are. > The G.729 patents mentioned in this thread, and others, reference > "an apparatus". Clearly, if you have a codec_free729.so, or similar, > then that is software and is therefore exempt from patentability > in free countries. The hardware in this case would be the PC. "Clearly" is an interpretation of yours that might not be shared by the court. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying your reasoning is wrong, but I am saying you are wrong to believe that legal professionals, be they judges or lawyers, will automatically see things the way you do. > Now, if someone had designed a chip that infringed the patents > then the registered patents would be enforceable. This is the real > reason for using "an apparatus" in the claims. In countries that > don't allow software and mathematical patents, "an apparatus" can > only mean hardware, and cannot be enforced against a software > implementation. Don't worry about that because they may sue you nonetheless and the lawsuit will then bankrupt you anyway. You remind me of the guy on whose tombstone is written "Run over by a truck at a zebra crossing. His last words were 'But I have priority here!'" > > Nobody on this list can give you absolution for something that is > > almost certainly going to get you into legal trouble. You will have to > > see a lawyer who is qualified and authorised to give such kind of > > advice. > > > Agreed. Well, then why do you keep insisting that G.729 related patent cases brought against a software based alleged infringement would be a walk in the park to dismiss? You won't find any lawyer who would be that upbeat about it. rgds benjk -- Sunrise Telephone Systems, 9F Shibuya Daikyo Bldg., 1-13-5 Shibuya, Tokyo, Japan. NB: Spam filters in place. Messages unrelated to the * mailing lists may get trashed. _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
