That anti-patent pamphlet I mentioned

Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet galactus at
Fri Dec 13 13:43:02 UTC 2002

Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
> El Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 01:06:56PM +0100, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet deia:
> > I don't know that. Manipulating EM signals seems like using forces
> > of nature in a controllable manner. 
> It depends. If the manipulation is ADC + multiplying by two in an FPU + DAC, 
> I say it isn't, we already know how to build circuits for that, 
> and we know what happens to a signal multiplied by two. 

But surely I am still using forces of nature in a controllable
manner, even if my use is entirely known??? 

> If you discover a new quartz crystal that will changed phase of
> signal by 10% then it's probably patentable. 

Ok, but if I program a DSP chip to realize the same phase change
it is not patentable? Why? What is the difference in effect
produced by these two things?

Kind regards,

Arnoud Engelfriet

Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies:

More information about the Discussion mailing list