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

[Peter Toft pto@sslug.dk]

On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Nick Fleming wrote:

> Jean-Jacques de Jong wrote :
>=20
> > 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.=20
> >
>=20
>=20
> Ah, I see. That would make sense. What that really means then
> is that actual USAGE of the patented material constitutes an
> infringement - regardless of whether the software was compiled
> or interpreted. I like this idea, as it allows distribution of ANY
> software, in ANY form without penalty (copyrights allowing
> of course), and places the burden of responsibility with the
> actual users.

Friends - this is very interesting. Do we here have _facts_ - i.e. the
letter of the law in the various European countries or what?? Could we
fight in court today based on these arguments.

BR

Peter Toft, Ph.D. [pto@sslug.dk] http://www.sslug.dk/~pto

"The linuX Files -- The Source is Out There."
=F8,=B8=B8,=F8=A4=BA=B0`=B0=BA=A4=F8,=B8=B8,=F8=A4=BA=B0`=B0=BA=A4=F8,=B8=
=B8,=F8=A4=BA=B0`=B0=BA=A4=F8,=B8=B8,=F8=A4=BA=B0`=B0=BA=A4=F8=A4=BA=B0`=B0=
=BA=A4=F8,=B8=B8,=F8=A4=BA=B0