On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 15:16 -0500, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > Les wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 17:34 +0100, Steve Searle wrote: > >> Around 05:28pm on Sunday, July 08, 2007 (UK time), Les Mikesell scrawled: > >> > >>> Which still leaves open the question of how many times you have to pay > >>> to license the same patent for the same device, or whether you can > >>> rearrange the bits in one licensed program? > >> Never! As a user you do not buy a licence for the patent - you would > >> only do that if you were going to manufacturei (code) and distribute > >> something that uses the patented process. As a user you get a licence > >> to run the software (and maybe do other things with it, e.g. the GNU > >> licence). > >> > > So, under this stricture, the folks who race cars, modifying the engine > > by changing the valve train, exhaust, modify the carburator or injection > > system add superchargers and do other things to boost performance are > > patent violators? > > > It is hard to say. You would have to know what modifications they > are making. Or do you think the engine is patented? > > > A radio amatuer who takes an AM radio apart, uses the capacitor, and > > transistors to build a new receiver for the amatuer bands, is a patent > > violator? > > > Is the radio patented? Is the capacitor? Does the design of the new > receiver violate a patent? > > > A boy who takes his bicycle apart, changes the stroke length on the > > pedals, modifies the handlebars, and changes the seat by some means is a > > patent violator? > > > What part of the bike is patented? > > > A man who buys a volkswagen bug, strips off the body, modifies the brake > > system and adds a roll cage to make a dune buggy is a patent violator? > > > Are you under the impression that a volkswagen bug is patented? > While it probably has some patented parts, the bug itself is not > patented. > > > A person who uses the Microsoft C compiler to create a new OS is a > > patent violator? > > > Are you assuming there is a patent on the Microsoft C compiler or > the source code it produces? Before you can be a patent violator, > there has to be a patent, and you have to violate it. > > > And if it is OK to modify and engine, or a car or even a radio, then why > > not a computer program? Is software hacking more illegal than hardware > > hacking? And is computer hardware and software hacking subject to > > strictures not imposed on other hardware in our possession? > > > Who says you can not modify a computer program? People do it all the > time. Now, if you included a patented process if the computer > program, then you may have problems. You may also run into copyright > problems, depending on what you do. > > > Are derivative patents then not valid? For instance, the frontwheel > > drive was originally developed by the Cord in the US. Are then all > > users of frontwheel drive subject to patents held by the Cord or the > > companies that inherited the Cord patents and records? Superchargers > > were first on Dusenbergs. Does that mean all superchargers have to pay > > a royalty to the Dusenbergs? I suspect they would like to hear that. > > > Are you under the impression that by building something, you > automatically get a patent on it? Or that a patent lasts forever? In > order for something to be patented, someone has to apply for the > patent, and it has to be approved. Somehow, I do not think the idea > of putting a supercharger on a car was ever patented. But I am sure > there were more then one supercharger design patent. > > > I'm just a bit incredulous. I have been around a while, and these are > > all things I have seen done, with no legal actions. The ackerman > > linkage that changes tire angle depending on which side of the turn the > > tire is on is a unique and non-obvious use of levers. It is used on > > every single car that I know of. How many are licensing that patent? > > > > I'm just curious. And clearly confused. > > > Definitely confused. You have some strange ideas about what a patent > is, and what it covers. All your examples show this. They are > examples of products made from different parts, some of witch may be > patented. > > On the other hand, what you are talking about with the software is > more like removing a patented part, taking it apart, and using the > design to build a new part... > I'm sorry, it took me a while to work through my thoughts on this. You speak like software is a casting, made from one contiguous material. It is not. A software program is a composition of parts, some of which one person owns the patents, some of which are not patentable at all (prior art, obvious art, etc.) and some of which may belong to the author. Lets make it like the differential of a car. I can take the bits out of the differential and modify them. For example adding a series of spiral clutches I can create a limited slip differential. Changing the spider gear to a centrifigal cone, I can achieve a differential with speed/power modifying capability. Modifying the spider and its gearing I can produce a system where one wheel always turns faster than the other (for something on a circular track). The gears are immutable without welding or other cutting, but the use of those gears in other mechanisms is still possible. Now lets say I create a variable speed differential such that a transmission is no longer required. In fact the only part I retain is the outer covering, the axels and bearings and retainers. And further lets stipulate that the only patented portion was the spider. The spider is gone, but the structure remaining is now a variable speed differential, using none of the original patented parts. This is both legal, permitted and in fact encouraged by patent law. What patent holders of software want to do is impose restrictions such that you cannot make such modifications to even the unpatented software inherent in the package they deliver to you. So if I am wrong about this, please enlighten me. Regards, Les H
