[Asterisk-Users] Digium and mailing lists

[Mike Boger Jr]

Hi,

Could you guys please take this conversation off list and converse directly
please. I believe you have been asked nicely before.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kevin Walsh" <kevin at cursor.biz>
To: "Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion"
<asterisk-users at lists.digium.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 5:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Digium and mailing lists


> 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
> _/   _/  _/_/_/_/      _/    _/_/_/  _/    _/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users