On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 22:25 +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > > There are two groups of patents related to G.729 (and to other codecs, > > and to many other signal processing techniques, such as modems). There > > are patents for algorithms, and patents for signal processing > > apparatus. The ones about algorithms - generally computational > > techniques to speed it up - are not an issue outside the US. Even in > > the US they can generally be sidesteped, by using slower methods to > > achieve the same effect. The ones covering signal processing equipment > > exist in many markets, especially most of Europe. Whatever your view > > on software patents, as soon as you run a G.729 code somewhere you > > have a physical device infringing those patents. > > How can generic PC hardware be covered by a patent? It's just a piece > of software, that is, algorithms neatly put together with some control > etc.
Have you read the wording of a patent? They have to be worded vague enough to cover most ways of doing something but with out getting too vague as to become invalid. So a lot of patents use wording such as "a device implementing this function to result in that output". This covers both a quick circuit hack and a generic DSP or CPU doing the same thing. As soon as the algorithm is executed by a chip, it becomes part of the device that does somthing to end in a specific result. -- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
