[Asterisk-Users] Digium and mailing lists

[Kevin Walsh]

Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists [benjk.on.asterisk.ml at gmail.com] wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 20:03:07 +0100, Kevin Walsh <kevin at cursor.biz> wrote:
> > My point is that
> > software and algorithm patents are simply not enforceable in England,
> > so the only defence would be to point this out, and that defence would
> > win every time.  To put it simply for you (again), software and
> > mathematical patents are not legal in England and Europe at the
> > moment, so there would be no case to answer.
> >
> That's all nice and good in theory, but in practise things are
> seldomly that clear cut. The trouble starts then the patent holder's
> attorneys, expert witnesses and the witnesses from the patent office
> convince the court that what you and I would describe as a software
> patent is in fact a hardware patent, because that's precisely what
> they are going to do, because that is the strategy upon which their
> questionable patent portfolio was probably built in the first place.
> 
> What Steve tried to explain was that the boundaries what is a software
> patent and what is not are blurred because clever patent attorneys
> know how to word the patents such that even an obviously software
> centric invention becomes a legitimate looking physical apparatus that
> can be patented.
>
This thread has to be taken in the context of someone using an
executable, such as chan_g729.so, or a bunch of source files, and
so be in breach of various US G.729 patents.  If someone manages
to convince a court that the G.729 patents describe hardware and not
software algorithms, or if someone convinces a court that chan_g729.so
is a hardware device, then I'll be very impressed.

If there's something in one of the G.729 patents that makes it clear
that their patent describes a specific hardware device, then a software
implementation would clearly not be in breach.  If the patent makes it
clear that the "invention" is a mathematical algorithm then it's not
valid, and therefore not enforceable, in England and Europe at this
time.  If the patent is ambiguous then the patent is invalid;  Patents
are supposed to describe an invention exactly.  A patent is not legal
in England or Europe if it describes an "idea", or a "method", instead
of a physical device.

Can we drop this now please?

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