4 ms·
You don't need patents to protect a specific implementation - code is copyrightable, and stealing your particular code (or even creating a derivative work like
by jbri 16y ago
You don't need patents to protect a specific implementation - code is copyrightable, and stealing your particular code (or even creating a derivative work like your "semantic-preserving changes" comment suggests) is illegal even without patents.
In order to avoid running afoul of copyright law you'd need to do a vacuum reimplementation based just on the description/specification of the algorithm - all that patents achieve is making such vacuum reimplementation also illegal, and it's up in the air whether that's even a good thing or not.
- kenjackson 16y agoYou don't need patents to protect a specific implementation - code is copyrightable, and stealing your particular code (or even creating a derivative work like your "semantic-preserving changes" comment suggests) is illegal even without patents. I think the case you're interested in is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Associates_International,_Inc._v._Altai,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Associates_Internation.... Based on trials that have used the filtration technique, if I know the issue ahead of time, I can workaround it.
- jbri 16y agoReading the actual page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Associates_Int._Inc._v._Altai_Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Associates_Int._Inc._v...), the "workaround" is a clean-room reimplementation. Unless you were referring to something else?
- kenjackson 16y agoThat's how they did it in this case, but the precedent for determining infringement uses filtration, not the process by which you created the implementation (clean room or otherwise). Of course, if you do walk this close to the line, you probably don't want to leave a paper trail that you're doing so.