Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3265 comp.misc:12740
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!rex!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao!rutgers!gatech!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!mucs!logitek!hrc63!mrcu!paj
From: paj@mrcu (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.misc
Subject: Re: hayes lawsuit
Message-ID: <944@puck.mrcu>
Date: 24 May 91 08:25:20 GMT
References: <1991May17.214226.10776@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <7e19222w164w@mantis.co.uk> <1991May21.090027@riddler.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK
Lines: 22

In article <1991May21.090027@riddler.Berkeley.EDU> yow@riddler.Berkeley.EDU (Billy Yow 283-4051) writes:
 [On proposed 5 cent royalties for trivial patents]
>A shareware or public domain program (that infringed) COULD NOT BE
>COPIED because the making of a copy would then require a patent payment
>if the copy was given away.  

>And what about BACKUPs of patented software do they infringe?

What *exactly* constitutes patent infringement?  Is it the
construction of a machine which falls under the patent?  Or is it the
subsequent sale or other disposal of that machine?  I think it is the
former (Note: I am not a lawyer).  Hence every time one loads (say)
RSA software into one's machine one breaks the law.  Making a backup
does not affect the issue since it is the loading of the software
(converting a general purpose computer into a specific machine which
is covered by the patent) that matters.

Paul.
-- 
Paul Johnson |            Isn't modern education wonderful: one size fits all!
-------------^------------------v-------------------------v-------------------
GEC-Marconi Research is not 	| Telex: 995016 GECRES G  | Tel: +44 245 73331
responsible for my opinions.	| Inet: paj@gec-mrc.co.uk | Fax: +44 245 75244