[Asterisk-Dev] Re: writing a GPL G.729?

[Steve Underwood]

Steven Critchfield wrote:

>On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 09:46 +0100, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
>  
>
>>Eric Wieling aka ManxPower <eric at fnords.org> writes:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I have NEVER seen ANY statement by a patent lawyer that the G729
>>>patents are not valid in some parts of the world.  All I've seen is
>>>non-lawyers saying that.
>>>      
>>>
>>Have I completely misunderstood patents?  I thought they were national
>>-- i.e., if I patent something here, in Norway, at the Norwegian
>>Patent Office, I'll have a Norwegian patent, and nobody else can sell
>>products incorporating my idea in Norway without paying me a licence
>>fee.  My Norwegian patent will, however, have no clout whatsoever in
>>the USA.  In fact, I've been told by people who were supposed to know
>>these things, that one has to make a trade-off between the cost of
>>patenting an invention in N countries, and the gains one expects from
>>those patents.  Thus, one applies for patents in those countries were
>>one expects large sales volumes to be possible.
>>
>>Frankly, I tend to suspect that there are a lot of little countries
>>where G.729 is *not* patented, because they don't have patent offices.
>>
>>I would expect, however, that G.729 is protected by some sort of
>>patent or other agreement covering the entire EU, and thus valid in
>>Norway as well.  (No, we're not a member: we want self-determination,
>>which is why we have agreed to follow all EU rules and regulations,
>>without the membership privilege of taking part in writing them.)
>>    
>>
>
>I posted about which countries the patents where first filed for. The
>URL for it is...
>http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2004-October/065227.html
>It includes a link to the itu documents that tell you about the patents.
>
>Of course I found this which shows you the ITU treaty.
>http://216.119.123.56/dyn4000/dyn/docs/ITSO/tpl1_itso.cfm?location=&id=5&link_src=HPL&lang=english
>
>And guess what, Norway is a ITU treaty signor.
>http://216.119.123.56/dyn4000/dyn/docs/ITSO/tpl1_itso.cfm?location=&id=3&link_src=HPL&lang=english
>
>BTW, I don't know what the site names should be above, the links where
>found on google using words "itu treaty".
>  
>
Software is patentable in Europe and most other places, when it meets 
certain conditions. It always has been. There is actually nothing in 
European patent law directly about software. What is says is basically 
pure maths can't be patented, while applied maths can. The means 
fundamental algorithms can't be patented, but a piece of software that 
has a "technical effect" can. I think "technical effect" is also a magic 
term of some kind in US patent law. The US does, however, allow the 
patenting of pure maths.

Try this link I posted on the users mailing list earlier 
http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/legal/decisions/2004/o29204.pdf  . This 
is a UK patent that went to arbitration, was thoroughly reviewed and 
passed under the current UK legal criteria. It has a "technical effect" 
so it got through. Read it. the term "technical effect" is the key 
trigger as to whether the thing is patentable. Within the arbitrators 
terms of reference their decision is right. This is a patentable thing 
under the 1977 UK patent law. However, prior art goes back to the 
earliest use of computers in the 1940s. The decision doesn't seem to 
allow for that. Still, if you have a few million to spare you could try 
to contest it in court, I guess. Good luck, the UK isn't partial to 
easily changing official decisions - see Charles Dickens, Bleak House 
and other works. It hasn't changed since his day.

Regards,
Steve