That anti-patent pamphlet I mentioned

[Simo Sorce]

On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 08:17, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> 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.

Software is not patentable, so the part of the invention that is
patented is a specific piece of hardware. This means it is already
covered.

> > > 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?

No, because software should not be patentable.

> > 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? 

Makes no difference which language because:
a) the software should not be patentable
b) a language can be translated into others without problems IF the
language is standard and documented

-- 
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce at xsec.it
Xsec s.r.l.
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20021217/b7b32467/attachment.sig>