That anti-patent pamphlet I mentioned

[Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet]

Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 19:03, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> > Alex Hudson wrote:
> > > I also don't think that re-implementation of something is necessarily
> > > something that should be covered by a patent. 
> > 
> > But surely all imitators are re-implementing an invention?
> 
> what's wrong in re-implementation? patents borned to stop copying to let
> you invest into making things, not to stop progress, re-implementation
> is progress ... we costantly re-implement inventions to make things
> easier, better, faster, nicer, ecc...

Nothing wrong with re-implementation. It just is difficult to
imagine how a patent can be worth anything if any re-implementation
of the same thing is not covered.

If it's an improvement, I believe you should be legally required
to get a license from the original patent holder.

> > Well, I also think that if you find a different implementation
> > of the same inventive idea in hardware, the patent holder should
> > be able to stop you. Just like with software. If it's a new
> > solution, you're in the clear. If it's just a different realization,
> > you're infringing.
> 
> seem you are not thinking that most problems have just one solution.

No technical problem has just one solution.

> if you patent the solution you patent the problem, if you patent the
> problem you stop innovation and progress because nobody except the
> patent holder is entitle to research in that problem field (and the
> patent holder is not pushed by competition either).

That's not true, everyone can do research and development.
You just can't make and sell products based on the research
if the products infringe a patent.

> 4 + 4 = 8
> there are no different solution that math if you make it be 4 + 4 = 5
> you simply get it wrong.

That's not a technical invention.

> > To name an example, let's take MPEG again. When you make a
> > video compression technique, you can build it in hardware or
> > in software that runs on a general-purpose processor. The
> > patent should cover both, or none. Not just the hardware variant.
> 
> That's nonsense, you are patenting an algorithm this way, you are
> patenting pure logic; pure logic cannot be patentable it's crazy
> to let people patent concepts!

I'm patenting a device that implements the logic. Feel free to
research and use the logic. Just don't sell devices implementing
the logic.

Kind regards,

Arnoud Engelfriet

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/