Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 18:20, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
If the solution is different, it's not covered by the claim. The fact that the solution is in software does not make the solution different.
It seem that you change the meaning of solution to accomodate your view, that's unfair. You just used the term "solution in software" to say it is different than the solution in hardware, so my logic say they are 2 different solutions for the same problem.
Ok, if there are two different solutions, you're free. If I said anything otherwise, I'm sorry.
Then you say the the fact that things are made in a different way "does not make the solution different"
If the only difference is that it now uses software, I do not think that is sufficient difference to make you get away from the patent. Just like it isn't a difference to paint it green or to make a plastic cover instead of a metal one.
True, but according to you the software variation should be excluded from my patent even if I mention it in the patent.
You shouldn't be able to mention it in the patent if you haven't realized it and give a detailed explanation on to how implement it.
Ok. So I include a listing in C that implements the software embodiment, and explain how the software can be loaded into a piece of hardware so you obtain the patented invention. Am I then allowed to go after people who make the hardware with the software?
Otherwise you are contradicting the basic principle of patents that is the disclosure of the information to be able to build what you patent.
Absolutely. I believe full disclosure of software should include a source code listing, although I'm not sure which language(s) to require. Does everyone understand C?
Kind regards,
Arnoud Engelfriet