[Patents] Re: Facts vs. Intention

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

=09If you publish a book describing with great detail a patented
technique, with as much detail as possible, you are not infringing the=20=

patent. Once more, publishing of the details of a gicen technique is
what patents are about. If the intention of the book is that anybody
can build a device using the patented technique, it does not make any
difference form the legal point of view, AFAIK.

=09The problem with software is that describing with great detail=20
provides also an automated way of getting the device. This is probably=20=

due to the fact that swoftware is not a good subject for patent law
(like are math algorithms). But I don=B4t see how you can forbide
dissemination of knowledge because "the intention is that people use
the resulting device". If dissemination of detailed information is
forbidden, we are killing the most known reason for having patents
(that the knowledge becomes public, althouhg the marketing of the
devices remains a monopoly).

=09Just my 0.02 euro...

=09=09Jesus.
=20
jp@smets.com writes:
 > In recent discussions (including the proposed difference between sou=
rce
 > and binary), I found one legal argument missing : the importance of
 > intention.
 >=20
 > I think that, if programmes were patentable, an infringement case co=
uld
 > be made by saying something like "although the source code is availa=
ble,
 > it was clearly not the intention of the publisher to publish it for
 > educational purpose but rather to make it available and usable by ma=
ny
 > users. The intention of the author was therefore to publish a progra=
mme
 > product, as source code, based on patented techniques and this is an=

 > infringement".
 >=20
 > This means that, from a law point of view, there is a way to make a
 > difference between
 > =091- source code intented for educationale purpose (to spread the
 > knowledge of a patented technology)
 > =092- source code intented for immediate use
 >=20
 > All source code distributions would probably fail under case 2-, sin=
ce
 > they are intented to be used rather just read.
 >=20
 > Regards,
 >=20
 > JPS.

--=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