[Patents] Re: source vs binary.

[Jean-Jacques de Jong jjdj@free.fr]

Nick Fleming wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
>         I was only pointing out that the boundaries
> between forms of software are not distinct, as
> wollny@cns.mpg.de put it :
> 
> " "source" and "binary"  describe only a state of
>     abstraction of the description of an algorithm."
> 
> It still means that interpreted languages such as
> TCL and PERL have to be distributed openly,
> in human readable form. For these languages
> the boundry between source and binary is irrelevant
> - the source code IS the program. That is why I believe
> that making laws to protect one FORM of software is
> wrong - and therefore the EPO's decision to allow
> patents on BINARIES is wrong. Anyone want to
> pass a law banning interpreted languages to make
> the law more clear ? (No e-mails please I'm JOKING!)

It is not clear what a software patent really protects. This can only be
clarified by case law, i.e. how the judges apply the patents. But case
law is scarce if not inexistent, even in the US. So, again, we must wait
and see.

As regards interpreted languages, IMHO a software patent would only
apply to the binary code temporarily produced by the interpreter. So
only a user would fall under the patent, not the distributor of the
program. 

>     Greg Aharonian and Jean-Jacques de Jong are right
> though - we're stuck with software patents (for now)
> and need to find a way to work within the legal system
> to make them fair for everybody. Having said that,
> I agree with Bernard Lang on one point: Just because
> there is a law on something doesn't necessarily make
> it right. Otherwise, if a government made hanging children
> under four years old legal, we'd all agree it was fair..right ??

The grant of software patents is one thing, and how they will be applied
is another: the two things are not decided by the same people. It is not
because a patent has a given theoretical coverage that a judge will
necessarily accept this coverage. A patent is a text of law. If the law
is considered bad, the judges will not apply it litterally, but
interpret it in a way they feel equitable. 

This makes me optimistic.

JJJ