The original poster had pointed to Julius Smith's web pages, in which he shows copious detail on how to model various physical musical instruments. The algorithms he shows are not patentable as algorithms. So you should not be afraid to look at them and dream up cool ways to use them.
I'm not saying there's no problem here. The problem shows up next, when you embed the algorithm into a computer program. Computer programs, in the US and increasingly, Europe (per your link below) are being patented, and may be a concern. But please...don't ever refuse to innovate on the fear that somebody else may have been there before you, patented his solution, and is waiting to ambush you if go the same way. That way lies disaster for everyone. You don't necessarily want to go reading related patents, either. The reason not to is that it exposes you to triple damages claims later (for "willful infringement", instead of the "oops, didn't know" kind.) The reason to DO it is that that's the reason for the whole patent system in the first place. Other people show their good ideas publically, so the world can benefit from them, and in return they get a temporary monopoly and can license it to you in a mutually beneficial way. I sure wish it actually worked that way. -BobC -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of xk Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 10:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Interesting read on modelling instruments > Patents on what? You can't patent algorithms. -BobC This will change really quickly, at least in Europe. http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/index.en.html
