[Asterisk-Users] Digium and mailing lists

[Kevin Walsh]

Steve Underwood [steveu at coppice.org] wrote:
> Kevin Walsh wrote:
> > 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.)
> > 
> Correct. Signal processing algorithms are not patentable in most places.
> Applied signal processing methods are.
>
Only when "applied" by creating a physical device.  I understand that
software "devices" are allowed by the USPTO, but that's exactly the
point you're missing: The USPTO only applies to the USA, other countries
have other patent rules, and most countries don't consider software
applications to be patentable.  If you have another meaning of "applied"
in the context of G.729 patents then please explain further.

>
> Just look up the patent databases. The trick is to make
> the patent general enough you can't work around it, yet narrow enough it
> won't get rejected. There are plenty of road blocks granted outside the
> US. 
> 
Tricks aside, you're straying off the topic and describing general
patents again.  My point is that algorithms, algorithms (applied in
software, or not applied at all) and other mathematical ideas are
NOT PATENTABLE in the free world.  I accept that they are patentable
in the USA, and also accept that this is the most likely source of
your confusion.

> >
> > 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. 
> > 
> Patent specifically are to lock things up under the control of a
> monopolist for a limited period. What other purpose could they possibly
> have? :-\ 
>
Patents (obviously not in the USA) need to describe a specific physical
invention; not an abstract idea, thought or mathematical algorithm.
Again, you're not saying anything to change the facts here.

> 
> Look up a few patents and see how the physical devices are described.
> They are carefully worded, in all but the most inept patents, to cover
> pretty much any realisation of the method.
> 
I'm not disputing the need for patents on physical devices, and we
(in England) have strict rules that govern just how "general" one can
be when wording a patent.

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