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

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 11:12:19PM +0000, 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.

In most cases, there is no such thing.

> 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. 

and only local law will say what is actually protected by the
patent...  and what penalties are for infingement, and when there is
(contributory) infringement.



-- 
Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX