|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 02:27 PM EST |
Algorithms are not patentable (they are math). And, in my
argument, your Perl version would NOT violate the patent -
because the patent specifies C. if you want to include
Perl, you need to specify a version in Perl. However, if
the code is PART of the patent (which includes hardware),
then yes, the person who owns the patent must show that the
Perl version, when incorporated into the device, is the same
as the C version.
Yes, I'm making it hard to patent software - on purpose.
Software is protected by copyright, why should it get
protection under Patent as well? Again, go back to the
Cotton Gin and A. Lincoln's device - they were very
detailed, and it was possible to work around them by varying
the details. On purpose. Current patents don't attempt to
patent "a way of achieving a result" - they attempt to
patent a result. Imagine if, instead of patenting the
Cotton Gin, Eli Whitney had patented "cleaning cotton."
Now ANY means to clean cotton would violate the patent. So
there is NO incentive to try and find another way to clean
cotton. Patents are supposed to SPUR innovation - but
patenting results actually dissuades people from innovating.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|