[Asterisk-biz] Asterisk Ffork - OpenPBX.org

[Paul]

Matt Riddell wrote:

>trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com wrote:
>  
>
>>What specifically are they gonna license?  That specific code or the
>>g.729 codec itself?  Were software patents in the EU recently voted to
>>be invalid?  That means that they can license a specific bit of code but
>>not the method for that code, which means that a 3rd party can write
>>their own g.729 codec and release that without paying the per seat
>>patent fee.
>>
>>Unless that was just a dream I had a few months ago, which is just as
>>likely.
>>    
>>
>
>From: http://www.sipro.com/
>
>Many companies believe that because the source code of a technology can be
>accessed at nearly no charge, they can integrate it within their products
>without considering intellectual property. They argue that since they possess
>the code itself they certainly have the rights to use this technology.
>
>
>  
>
Suppose I discover a much better method of balancing the checkbook. It 
is such a great improvement over well-known methods that I truly deserve 
the patent I get for it.

That means I can prevent you from using the method with pencil and 
paper, with mechanical calculators and also with computer software. So I 
don't need to patent any software, do I?

The underlying basis of a patent is new discovery of truth. The truth 
existed before it was discovered. Throwing a rock at an attacking beast 
was a new discovery of truth at one time. A method to get 50 kw of power 
from 100 grams of household garbage per day might win you a patent. It 
could be that your method will not be cost effective until long after 
the patent expires but if it is a new discovery of truth you can apply 
for a patent.

Inventors do not conjure things up or create them out of thin air. The 
mathematical and scientific truths are what make the invention possible. 
The inventor is an explorer and discoverer.

I really don't see how any government can afford to properly evaluate 
patent applications with the fees they collect. They charge the same fee 
for salad spinners and codecs.

I haven't seen any strong arguments here that the g.729 algorithm itself 
is not deserving of a patent.