Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:42:32 -0400 | From | "Ryan C. Gordon" <> | Subject | Re: FatELF & patents |
| |
> However, there are 20 claims in the patent. Just using a different way > to store the architecture independent header might not be enough.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have anything to add to this except that FatELF has a few fields that Apple's format doesn't, so the flow chart they specify isn't the same. I don't really know enough about how patents work.
Any lawyers around that can comment on this? Is this something to be concerned with (and if so, what sort of changes would make FatELF not violate the patent), or is this all just business as usual?
--ryan.
| |