Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
> Then if I'm understanding correctly, the patent applicability is decided 
> by looking at the final purpose of the use of the thing patented?

Methods and processes are patented as "process to do X". If you're not doing 
X, it doesn't count.  Read the first claim in that link I posted, and you'll 
see what the language is like.

> As far as I understand patent law (which is probably not much ;-) ), the 
> hardware is one thing, the algorithm it implements is another.

Right. You can't patent the algorithm. You patent hardware running the 
algorithm.

> If the 
> hardware is patented I'm free to implement exactly the same function on 
> another hardware.

It depends how the hardware is described. If you describe the hardware as 
"mechanism for inserting a controllable delay between strokes of windshield 
wipers", it doesn't matter if you implement it with electronics, vacuum 
lines, or a mechanical cog. But if you use the exact same hardware to time 
the beeps of the burglar alarm, it's not violating the patent that patents 
mechanisms for the delay of wipers.

If the patent says "Boil willow bark for 2 hours, then mix with salt and 
carbon-rich iron shavings", it doesn't matter whether you use a cauldron or 
a stainless steel pot to make your aspirin.

> 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...

Well, I posted a link to the patent. Look at it. :-)

The patent on the hardware is something like claim 29, which sounds like a 
hardware description of what registers you'd need in a compression chip that 
implements LZW.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message