🚀 go-pugleaf

I've come into this discussion late - since Peter Deutsch's posting
to comp.lang.postscript.  There are some essential questions to address
when talking about patents that I have not seen so far, so pardon
me if I'm repeating somebody else.

What countries have the patent applications been made in?  Have they
been thrown out anywhere?  Have they been contested anywhere?  (the
last two questions avoid an awful lot of armchair legal threshing
over whether the patents are `valid' or not!)  What is/are the
patent number(s)  [I'd appreciated the UK number, since the patent
library is a very large building that I would not want to get lost
in - it's so interesting in there I might not be seen again]?
Ideally, could someone actually POST the claims section of the
patent(s) so that even those who are not near a patent library can
see?

Unless the patent actually describes a machine or engine for
compressing files, it is unlikely to be valid in my country.  ust
last month an attempt to patent an algorithm dressed up as a ROM was
thrown out.  I don't think that LZW could compress an infinite
input stream, so presumably it discusses documents or files. Without
trial, it would therefore be difficult to ascertain whether a laser
printer without the capacity to store files, and which implemented
an speicifc algorithm whose existing was a consequence of the
implementation of the machines using the patent elsewhere, would
actually be covered by the claims.  I would not like to risk my
mony on fighting such as trial.  On the other hand, standalone
software such as GhostScript, definitely assumes a filesystem, and
would be covered [NOTE: this is a hypothetical issue: I am trying
to show how careful you must be with words and definitions here].

Bear in mind that people discuss the law as if it is a formal
system; it is not, it is a precedent-driven system.  It may be
that the LZW patent has never been adequately challenged.  If the
FSF has money, and *really* beleives what it says, then it might
be useful to have a test case.

Disclaimers:  sorry about the standard of English; I'm typing too
fast into a dumb editor.  --> I am not a lawyer; I have simply
re-implemented around a patent in the past <---

You mileage may vary.  ALWAYS consult a lwyer.

-- 
Ian D. Kemmish                    Tel. +44 767 601 361
18 Durham Close                   uad1077@dircon.UUCP
Biggleswade                       ukc!dircon!uad1077
Beds SG18 8HZ United Kingdom    uad1077@dircon.co.uk