Steve Searle wrote:
Around 06:02pm on Sunday, July 08, 2007 (UK time), Les Mikesell scrawled:
That's the way it worked in the days before software (which you can
represent as a large string of bits or a number) was allowed to be
patented. The argument for permitting software patents is that the
software also represents a model of a process that could be covered when
running. My contention is that software is only in this covered state
when actually running on a device (otherwise its just a big number) and
that having any license to run the covered process on a particular
device should absolve any obligations to the patent holder even if you
modify that copy or replace it with different software that implements
the same covered (and previously licensed) process.
Les, when you say "My contention is..." do you mean that you think that
this is the actual case in law, or do you mean you think it should be
like that?
I think that is the way it should be as a result of what patents are
supposed to cover. I don't have any idea if a court could be convinced
to see it that way or not.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
