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

[Steven Critchfield]

On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 23:55 +0200, 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?

no, you do not need to submit a prototype. 

What would the resemblence be on something like a interupted windshield
wiper? The part that made a difference was electronic and all it had to
do was interupt the power to a motor tasked with wiping the windshield.
This interupter could be configured in a manner to have multiple
settings to affect the delay.

That would be valid, and in any implementation that interupted the
driving motor from it's task would be covered by the patent. This is why
the car manufacturers had to pay a man for the patent a royalty once he
went to court. So on something as simple as this device, do you think
putting the adjustments and the switching inside a general purpose CPU
gets you passed the part of the patent that says you interupt the
driving motor?

> The isssue on patenting an algorithm/software (not a device) is
> a completelly different issue as we know.



-- 
Steven Critchfield <critch at basesys.com>