[Asterisk-Users] G.729 licensing/patent?

[Steve Underwood]

Damjan wrote:

>>>How can generic PC hardware be covered by a patent? It's just a piece 
>>>of software, that is, algorithms neatly put together with some control 
>>>etc.
>>>      
>>>
>>Have you read the wording of a patent? They have to be worded vague
>>enough to cover most ways of doing something but with out getting too
>>vague as to become invalid. So a lot of patents use wording such as "a
>>device implementing this function to result in that output". This covers
>>both a quick circuit hack and a generic DSP or CPU doing the same thing.
>>As soon as the algorithm is executed by a chip, it becomes part of the
>>device that does somthing to end in a specific result.  
>>    
>>
>
>If I'm not mistaken, if you patent a device (aparatus) you can't be so
>vague in the patent wording and have to submit a prototype too... 
>doesn't that mean that if my device doesn't in any way resemble the
>prototype I'm clear from patent infrigement?
>
>The isssue on patenting an algorithm/software (not a device) is
>a completelly different issue as we know.
>  
>
In some countries you need to submit a working prototype. In others you 
don't. One of the complaints made about the US system is it became much 
screwier when the prototype requirement was dropped. Submitting 
prototypes was perhaps a good way of weeding out a lot of the rubbish.

To infringe, something doesn't have to resemble the prototype. It has to 
fit the description in one or more of the claims in the patent. The rest 
of the patent, and the prototype, are essentially commentary. Only the 
claims section really matters once the patent is issued. That is the 
case everywhere I know about.

Regards,
Steve