On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 13:47 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:27:30PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: > > > > 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. > > Patents are often about methods, not algorithms. In fact, there's > supposedly a restriction against algorithms being patented -- though of > course lawmakers and people working at the patent office don't seem to > know what an algorithm is, so algorithms do get patented all the time. > > Anyway . . . as it happens, patenting a "method" provides far more broad > power than patenting an algorithm, anyway, in practice. That's one of > the reason (software) patents are so damaging. >
I think I might take it up with my lawyer if I want to do something like this then. Seems like they've got it all wrapped up... My conclusion is that "it sucks and blows - something that shouldn't be physically possible". But that seems to be life atm :( (globally, not mine) _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"