MJ Ray writes: > On 2004-09-24 13:37:42 +0100 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Computer programs, by their nature, combine both copyrightable and > > patentable elements. > > Mathematical relationships are discoveries, not inventions. Similarly > algorithms: the right one existed, but you just didn't know > it. Expressions of algorithms are covered by copyright. There is not > necessarily any construction or fabrication, either real or > imagined. So computer programs, by their nature, contain no patentable > elements under English law.
Your (claimed) law is not everyone's law. It's silly to ignore the case of the US (and apparently Australia[1], most of Asia[2, pg 25], and others), since a significant number of mirrors, developers, and users are there. A number of other courts, including the German Supreme Court[2, pg 13], have held that computer programs can infringe patents. [1]- http://old.linux.org.au/papers/no-patents.html [2]- http://www.slwk.com/CM/PhoneSeminars/asia.pdf Michael Poole
