Semantics. What you are really saying is that you can't patent math. But if you look at something like the Frauenhofer-patent, it's clear this is just a matter of disguising semantics (read: smart lawyers). Example from http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04c_e.htm
"...patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. ...patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced". Wikipedia's entry for the LZW algorithm makes no distinction btw: "...US patents were issued for the LZW algorithm: U.S. Patent 4,814,746 by Victor S. Miller and Mark N. Wegman and assigned to IBM, originally filed on June 1, 1983, and U.S. Patent 4,558,302 by Welch, assigned to Sperry Corporation, later Unisys Corporation, filed on June 20, 1983. On June 20, 2003, this patent on the LZW algorithm expired [1]". It's also country/region specific of course, in my country thankfully we do not allow software patents and my union is actively fighting to keep this nasty habit on the western side of the pond. /Casper On Mar 6, 3:39 pm, Christian Edward Gruber <[email protected]> wrote: > Side note - you can't patent algorithms, only implementations of > algorithms. > > Christian. > > On Mar 5, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Casper Bang wrote: > > > > > Suing - there's an app for that! > > > On Mar 5, 8:44 pm, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA1 > > >> On 3/5/10 18:00 , OldFatGit wrote:> This blog explains it better > >> than I can... > > >>>http://blogs.zdnet.com/carroll/?p=1925&tag=content;col1 > > >> I much agree on that - but the real problem here is the current > >> interpretation of software patents. I'm not completely against > >> software patents - for instance, if you invent a new algorithm e.g. > >> for compressing video streams, I think you should have the right to > >> patent it (I'm not saying that it would be advisable or a good thing, > >> on the contrary, I think that FLOSS is better - but that in this case > >> there is genuine IP that one might want to control exercising his > >> right to choose). The problem is when laws allow you to patent things > >> such as a listener (!), as the blog describes, assuming the author > >> correctly interpreted the thing. > > >> - -- > >> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > >> Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > >> java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/people > >> [email protected] > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) > >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > >> iEYEARECAAYFAkuRXwQACgkQeDweFqgUGxcRjACZAQ/hHi7Ns+PPGbE/npFdSKgC > >> bxoAn31fGbkfyROoaBJEzcxLvDsx0STW > >> =Rkd0 > >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "The Java Posse" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected] > > . > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en > > . > > Christian Edward Gruber > e-mail: [email protected] > weblog:http://www.geekinasuit.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
