On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:42:33PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Consider the following situation: > * Code (say MPEG encoder code) is considered to be covered by patents > * Those patents are considered to be actively enforced > * Code implementing an MPEG encoder is shipped in a source package > * This code is not compiled or used, and the user is not encouraged to > compile it or use it, and is actually warned against compiling or using it > without a patent license. > > Now, it seems to me that this shouldn't create any legal patent problems. > Under patent law, describing how to perform a patented process is supposed > to be legally protected -- in fact, it's required under the patent publication > laws. > > Actual use of the patented process is restricted, of course, but the situation > I just described is specifically intended to discourage and prevent use, while > allowing people to study the code. > > How debased is our patent system? Do the lawyers or people paying attention > to the status of legal cases think that this is safe or not (or safe in some > countries and not in others)? Good question. I'd also like to know the answer. Unfortunately, I don't think anybody really knows. It's not the sort of thing that courts often deal with. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature