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

[Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona jgb@gsyc.escet.urjc.es]

Bernard Lang writes:
 > > [...]
 > > Simply because source code is human readable whereas binary code i=
s not.
 > > The source code is a human readable expression of the operation of=
 a
 > > program. The teachings of a patent are meant to be disseminated: s=
omeone
 > > cannot be sued for doing that. The distribution of source code of =
a
 > > patented program is only another means of disseminating the techni=
cal
 > > teachings.
 >=20
 > this is pure nonsense... and you know it, since the source code can
 > be changed into object code without human intervention.
 >=20
 > I will not admit to stupidity, even supported by lawyers.
 >=20

=09So, you mean that although spreading technical details about a=20
patented technique is permited (and even encouraged) by law (as a
describing the technique with full detail and explanations in a book ,=20=

for instance), spreading *exact* technical details (source code) is
not permited? I=B4m not a lawyer, but I don=B4t see the reason. As far =
as
I know, patents give you the right to collect money from people
actually *building and marketing* devices which use your
technique. Neither spread of information nor private use is actually
covered by patents. Or am I totally wrong?

=09A mathematical technique is described by an
algorithm. Algorithms are not patentable (only a devide using a given
algorithm is). A source program is clearly the (formal) description of=20=

an algorithm. Where is the difference?

=09Saludos,

=09=09Jesus.

PS: Yes, I know that many of these arguments can also be given for
executable code.
PPS: Perhaps what we are seeing here is just that software (even
execuable code) is not (and cannot be considered as) a device, but
something of a completely different nature. It is so different, that=20=

the device and the description of the device is basically the same
thing (you can convert description into device withouht human
intervention). This probably invalidates the very idea of a software
patent, since with patents you publish the description (the text and
diagramas describing the patented tehcnique) to gain a monopoly on the=20=

construction and marketing of devices. With software, publishing the
description is the same as distributing (marketing) the device.

--=20
Jesus M. Gonzalez Barahona             | Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
jgb@gsyc.escet.urjc.es                 | ESCET
jgb@computer.org                       | c/ Tulipan s/n
Grupo de Sistemas y Comunicaciones     | 28933 Mostoles, Spain