Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/19/05, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's basically how patent law works in every area. You can
> > publish the knowledge but not apply the knowledge to make, use
> > or sell a working device or actual product. And a book that
> > humans can rea
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:10:10 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > More like, the expression in .obj is patented, but the expression
> > in .PDF is not. Feel free to publish papers; don't distribute
> > devices that execute the algorithm disclosed in those papers.
>
> And how
On 7/19/05, Monty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 04:05:59PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > That's mighty cool. Can you say anything about the Mercora encoder's
> > psycho-acoustic bits
>
> In fact, I can't say much about it (I know all about it but am under
> NDA).
Th
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > IMHO, yes, as this is the widely accepted definition of "source
> > code" (it is found in the GPL text, as you know) and DFSG#2
> > mandates the inclusion of source code.
>
> I'm not convinced that it's a w
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm not convinced that it's a widely accepted definition of "source
>> code".
>
> As of yet, no one has put forward a better definition of source code.
> Until that time, the "prefered form for modification"
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> I'm not convinced that it's a widely accepted definition of "source
> >> code".
> >
> > As of yet, no one has put forward a better definition of source code.
Summary: I can still find no substantive difference between US and
EPO law on software patentability.
On 7/20/05, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip good stuff]
> For contributory infringement you need additional evidence.
> Contributory infringement is knowingly selling or supply
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 07:01:51PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> "Anything that allows a form of practical modification consistent with
> the functionality of the resulting work", or something along those
> lines. Yes, it's horribly fuzzy, but it's a horribly fuzzy area.
> "Preferred form of modi
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The problem is exactly the same: European patent law does not
> > > exclude patents on mathematical methods, but only on mathematical
> > > methods _as such_. Apparently t
On 20 Jul 2005 23:14:28 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the EPO is an artefact of the EPC, it can't be "the people
> who wrote that law" so why is EPO reinterpreting the EPC?
> Is it actually known whether the drafters meant the claimed
> "you can patent maths as part of a machine" view
10 matches
Mail list logo
