From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Feb 20 2007 - 09:05:02 CST
Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
> Are you sure that this (individual claims) is required? I've seen
> comments about US patents where infringement is demonstrated only when
> *all* claims are infringed. If you drop only only claim (for example
> some details about the implementation technics), and replace it by
> something else not covered in that patent, then it is not the same
> product, and it is not patented.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that if that were the case, it would be
rather counterproductive to list pages and pages of specific claims.
Maybe you are right and I can create an alternative encoding that, say,
treats the range U+0020 through U+003F the same way that BOCU-1 treats
U+0020 alone. Sometimes it would yield better compresson, sometimes
The rest of your post, including the international scope of patents and
the potential conflict between IBM's patent and the X license, I would
not touch without legal advice.
-- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 20 2007 - 09:07:35 CST