That anti-patent pamphlet I mentioned

[Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet]

Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 18:20, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> > If the solution is different, it's not covered by the claim.
> > The fact that the solution is in software does not make the
> > solution different.
> 
> It seem that you change the meaning of solution to accomodate your view,
> that's unfair. You just used the term "solution in software" to say it
> is different than the solution in hardware, so my logic say they are 2
> different solutions for the same problem. 

Ok, if there are two different solutions, you're free. If I said
anything otherwise, I'm sorry.

> Then you say the the fact that
> things are made in a different way "does not make the solution
> different"

If the only difference is that it now uses software, I do not think
that is sufficient difference to make you get away from the patent.
Just like it isn't a difference to paint it green or to make a
plastic cover instead of a metal one.

> > True, but according to you the software variation should be
> > excluded from my patent even if I mention it in the patent.
> 
> You shouldn't be able to mention it in the patent if you haven't
> realized it and give a detailed explanation on to how implement it.

Ok. So I include a listing in C that implements the software
embodiment, and explain how the software can be loaded into
a piece of hardware so you obtain the patented invention. Am
I then allowed to go after people who make the hardware with
the software?

> Otherwise you are contradicting the basic principle of patents that is
> the disclosure of the information to be able to build what you patent.

Absolutely. I believe full disclosure of software should
include a source code listing, although I'm not sure which
language(s) to require. Does everyone understand C? 

Kind regards,

Arnoud Engelfriet

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