On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 02:16 -0800, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: > > > Unfortunately, anything covered by a patent, as I hinted > > > above, is verboten. > > Er, doesn't it depend on what is patented? If the h/w itself is > patented, but its software-visible interface is not, there should be > no problem writing a driver for that h/w. OTOH if the algorithms > used in the driver are patented it would be an infringement to > reproduce them. > > > But if I remember my legal and ethics course correctly if you > > can arrive at a conclusion through your own research then your > > reasonably clear. > > Not under patent, at least in the US, last I heard. (IANAL) > A patent is infringed by any reproduction of the technology > involved, even entirely independently. Someone described the > justification as avoiding a situation in which it would pay > to be ignorant of what others had done. >
If you have done your own research then the algorithms wouldn't necessarily be the same- they'd nearly certainly be different, wouldn't they? So isn't that the basis for the patent? A patent is a registration of an idea. Two different ideas can still arrive at the same conclusion. > > For example, the drivers are closed source but the hardware itself > > is an entirely separate issue. So if you can create your own > > drivers by your own research into how the hardware is setup then > > the drivers created could licensed under your own terms- open > > source or otherwise. > > At least in the US, that works for copyright but not for patent. > > > The drivers and hardware may operate together but are separate > > items of creativity, therefore do not operate under the same > > patent. > > Again, it depends on exactly what is patented (strictly speaking, > what the patent's "claims" are.) _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"