Darren New a écrit :
> Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
>> So, technically you could argue that you're using LZW not to compress, 
>> but to obfuscate your data? A slight compression being just a 
>> side-effect :-)
> 
> Yes, exactly. If, for example, the steps you follow to do LZW 
> compression was one step of an encryption algorithm, it wouldn't be 
> encumbered by the patent. 

Then if I'm understanding correctly, the patent applicability is decided 
by looking at the final purpose of the use of the thing patented?

> That patent also patents hardware implementations of LZW. Would you say 
> that hardware isn't patentable in the EU, because it's implementing a 
> "software patent"?

As far as I understand patent law (which is probably not much ;-) ), the 
hardware is one thing, the algorithm it implements is another. If the 
hardware is patented I'm free to implement exactly the same function on 
another hardware. If the method is patented I can't do it at all.

It would be perfectly understandable to patent a particular hardware 
doing LZW compression, but not to put a patent on every unspecified 
hardware that does LZW compression. The issue may revolve around the 
generality of the claims in the patent...

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message