From jean-jacques_de-jong@hp.com Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:26:39 +0100
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 09:26:39 +0100
From: Jean-Jacques de Jong jean-jacques_de-jong@hp.com
Subject: [Patents] Re: source vs binary.

wollny@cns.mpg.de wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Jean-Jacques de Jong wrote:
> 
> > wollny@cns.mpg.de wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Jean-Jacques de Jong wrote:
> > >
> > A clear limit must be found between what is allowable dissemination of
> > the teachings of a patent, and what is distributing an infringing
> > product.
> > There is no case law, so we must anticipate it. I think the
> > source-code/binary-code limit is defendable, because it is equivalent to
> > the limits that could be clearly set in other fields, e.g. plans/device,
> > diagram/electronic circuit...
> 
> And where will you set the limit with code, which is always in source
> (like shell scripts) ?
> IMO the limit is if I actually follow the given description and execute
> the algorithm. But, if this is not bound to a special purpouse device,
> even the execution with pen and paper or in thought becomes an
> infringtion - and this is doubleplus-ungood.


In the case of interpreted language, the infringer would be the one who
produces the binary, i.e. the user who is feeding the code to the
interpreter on a computer.

JJJ




