In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Thu, 04 Jan 2007 04:28:32 +0000
<2674069.VoOGUtdWV9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Software ain't patentable, damn it!
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | So what we have now is the US government allowing companies to patent
> | ideas, expressed in various software languages that they didn't invent,
> | using concepts and techniques developed and refined in the open, to
> | perform tasks that are obvious to one versed in the field. This is
> | the antithesis of what patents were intended to protect.
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | So we all should applaud, and support, the activities of the Software
> | Freedom Law Center in fighting the legal fiction of software patents.
> | As this current case illustrates, software patents not only threaten
> | and discourage the creation and use of free software but also
> | commercial/non-free software as well.
> `----
>
> http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/software_aint_patentable_damn_it
I would hope that all those involved realize that a patent
on a piece of code in, say, C, allows infringement claims
on any other code that implements the algorithm in a
similar fashion, *regardless of language*.
In short, if I implement LZW in Perl to generate GIF
images, I infringe on the (fortunately now expired)
Unisys GIF patent. (Yes, I have a small counter using
this concept; I took it down when I found out about the
patent, and replaced my smattering of GIFs. Earthlink now
no longer supports CGI so the counter's no longer useful
anyway. :-) I'll have to see if I still have it; I'm not
sure where it wandered off to.)
Done one way, this could tie the legal system up in knots
-- and that's the *good* news. But never mind that,
what did one want to monopolize today?
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
important, it's the ability to DO something
with it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
