On Sunday 19 November 2006 07:43, Anders Johansson wrote: > On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:35, Randall R Schulz wrote: > > On Sunday 19 November 2006 04:31, Anders Johansson wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > Patent violations, of course, don't even need source code access > > > > How do you figure? Patents are about how something is accomplished > > as much as what is accomplished. They are about specific > > mechanisms, not just specific outcomes. > > Patents are not about how something is accomplished, no. That is > copyright. Patents are about what is accomplished. There is no way to > design around it. If a particular function is patented, the only way > to avoid infringing on the patent is to throw out the patent (or, > naturally, invalidating the patent by showing prior art, but that's > another story)
Copyright is about specific works of authorship. Period. Patents are about mechanisms (now including algorithms). Naturally, mechanisms and algorithms do specific things. But you cannot patent the result. You patent a means of producing that result. Patent infringement means you replicated the patentent mechanism, algorithm or process without a suitable agreements to do so with the patent holder. It is not an infringement to find a new way of doing something for which there is a patent. Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
