[Patents] Re: source vs binary.

[Jean-Jacques de Jong jean-jacques_de-jong@hp.com]

wollny@cns.mpg.de wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Jean-Jacques de Jong wrote:
> 
> > Nick Fleming wrote:
> > >
> > > Why should there be a distinction between binary and source ?
> > > Many languages are interpreted rather than compiled, and
> > > modern executables usually contain enough debugging information
> > > to be viewed + understood (if not completely)  with a dissassembler.
> >
> > Simply because source code is human readable whereas binary code is not.
> 
> It may be difficult for humans to read binary code, but one can translate
> it to a more readable form (and a real may even understand the plain
> hex-code for some special machine). Many device drivers under i.e. linux
> exist only due to such process also known as reverse engineering.
> "source" and "binary"  describe only a state of abstraction of the
> description of an algorithm.

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...

JJJ