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

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

Nick Fleming wrote:
> 
> Jean-Jacques de Jong wrote :
> 
> > 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.
> >
> 
> 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.
> 

Whoops, not exactly. I also mentioned elsewhere that the distribution of
binary code would be an infringement. Look at my first answer to
Jean-Paul Smets' post "Facts vs. Intention", there are some further
clarifications (and open questions).

These arguments are just an opinion based on the laws and on the purpose
of the patent system (dissemination of knowledge). I would indeed
suggest to use them for defense in an infringement suit.

JJJ