[Patents] Re: [Patents] Re: source vs binary.

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 02:49:32PM +0100, Jean-Jacques de Jong wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents

patenting integers is absurd !

-- 
Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX