[Asterisk-Users] Digium and mailing lists

[Kevin Walsh]

Steve Underwood [steveu at coppice.org] wrote:
> Kevin Walsh wrote:
> > Software patents are generally patents on ideas and/or mathematical
> > algorithms, both of which are not patentable in a lot of countries, and
> > rightly so. 
> > 
> > If you were trying to express the opinion that the G.729 patents are
> > somehow enforceable in the free world then you need to work on
> > expressing your opinions a little more clearly - and preferably with
> > some justification. 
> > 
> Why the heck would you expect a signal processing patent to be a problem
> in any country with patent laws? How does software come into this, at
> all? The commonest realisation of these things right now is on
> programmable processors. They are also realised in pure, non
> programmable, hardware as well. Do you think that by some magic a
> technique becomes a free for all, just because you implement it in
> software? Would you see any problem with patenting the hardware
> realisation of the same things?
>
I seem to remember you asking several people to do some research
before asking dumb questions.  It's probably about time for me to
suggest that you take your own advice.

If you do, you'll find that "signal processing" algorithms, in fact
all forms of mathematics, are NOT PATENTABLE in the free world.
(Americans don't understand freedom.)

To use your own example, a physical device that implements a signal
processing function may be patentable, but the general function that
the device performs is not (well, not in the free world, anyway).  The
reason for this is to allow someone may invent a new way of doing the
same thing, rather than locking up the whole idea and handing exclusive
control to a monopolist.

-- 
   _/   _/  _/_/_/_/  _/    _/  _/_/_/  _/    _/
  _/_/_/   _/_/      _/    _/    _/    _/_/  _/   K e v i n   W a l s h
 _/ _/    _/          _/ _/     _/    _/  _/_/    kevin at cursor.biz
_/   _/  _/_/_/_/      _/    _/_/_/  _/    _/