On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 17:17, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Looking at it from a larger viewpoint, the idea that merely distributing > > source code and saying, "don't use this" gets around patent law is > > fairly silly. > > Not really. Particularly if in fact no one is using that part of the > code distributed by Debian. > > > The only sane interpretation is that creating source code > > is "making" the invention, and that source code is the invention. I > > can't see any other interpretation that doesn't lead to absurdity. > > On the hand, perhaps the only way to understand patents is to embrace > absurdity. > > How do you propose to cope with patents where there is nothing to be > "made"? For example, there are patents covering teaching methods that > don't depend on any special equipment or materials. There are patents > on business methods that cover activies with no associated hardware or > software. There is a patent covering a "method of swinging on a swing" > (the swing itself is standard; the patent covers a particular way of > using it; no additional equipment is required).
Look for "uses" in 271 (a). > The only sane interpretation is that patents cover ideas and the use > of the idea. Distributing a description of an idea in such a way that > you are not causing other people to use the idea does not to me look > like an infringement. Patents cover all sorts of things -- the ways in which patents can be infringed are manifold. Both "making" and "using" are among these ways. > Some patents include working source code that implements the idea. Most don't, especially these days. > The patents are available on-line from the US patent office. Is the > US patent office itself infringing? I don't think so. I think the > patent is infringed when someone uses the code (or the idea) for fun > or profit, and someone who incites or assists people to do that may be > guilty of contributory infringement. Or when someone sells the code or imports it into the US, according to the plain language of the act. I would say that code in a patent is generally not adapted for actual use, while code in (say) GIMP, is. > Is Debian inciting or assisting people to infringe the LZW patent by > passing on this code where the only change Debian has made is to yet > further discourage people from using the patented idea? I think that's possible, yes. The original distributor is probably infringing too (if s/he's usian). -- -Dave Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF