Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3293 comp.misc:12809 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mintaka!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!petrilli From: petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.misc Subject: Re: hayes lawsuit Message-ID: Date: 2 Jun 91 20:51:26 GMT References: <1991May17.214226.10776@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <7e19222w164w@mantis.co.uk> <1991May21.090027@riddler.Berkeley.EDU> <944@puck.mrcu> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Distribution: na Organization: The Free Software Foundation Lines: 33 In-reply-to: paj@mrcu's message of 24 May 91 08:25:20 GMT Paul Johnson writes: Billy Yow 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. It is my understanding that so long as you do not make a profit from the use of the patent, that the patent holder cannot charge you for use of the patent and the information contained within it. I know that it used to be like this, but I am not sure whether it still is or not. This is an intereting hole in it, that as far as I am concerned would allow the FSF to continue its work, no matter how many patents cover what they do. Someone, please clarify this. Mike are you out there? Chris -- | Chris Petrilli | petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu | I don't even speak for myself.