Compiled versus interpreted has no bearing on this. The patent and the source code in it exists only to instruct, and by itself the invention claimed is neither made, sold or used and has no commercial effect. Unless an unlicensed third party does anything with it, it is not being made, used or sold, and so cannot infringe. Software that is lying unused and unexecuted on some computer readable media is still infringing if it was created without license because the act of copying code on to or distributing that media counts as "making" or "selling". I I cannot imagine under what interpretation a patent itself could count as an "unlicensed third party".
Are you proposing that if my patent containing source code is published by Google on Google Patents, I can sue them for infringing it because they are an "unlicensed third party"?
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Let me take a stab, though. Keep in mind that the text of the code does absolutely nothing until it is interpreted or compiled. Now, say your code implements a way to detect porn in an image, which is what your patent claims. By publishing the code in the patent, is Google Patents, or heck even the USPTO, making, using or selling "porn detection in images"?
A simple answer to this question is the answer to the question, "Can I submit an image to USPTO/Google Patents and get a determination of whether the image contains porn?"
Comments
Compiled versus interpreted has no bearing on this. The patent and the source code in it exists only to instruct, and by itself the invention claimed is neither made, sold or used and has no commercial effect. Unless an unlicensed third party does anything with it, it is not being made, used or sold, and so cannot infringe. Software that is lying unused and unexecuted on some computer readable media is still infringing if it was created without license because the act of copying code on to or distributing that media counts as "making" or "selling". I I cannot imagine under what interpretation a patent itself could count as an "unlicensed third party".
Are you proposing that if my patent containing source code is published by Google on Google Patents, I can sue them for infringing it because they are an "unlicensed third party"?
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Let me take a stab, though. Keep in mind that the text of the code does absolutely nothing until it is interpreted or compiled. Now, say your code implements a way to detect porn in an image, which is what your patent claims. By publishing the code in the patent, is Google Patents, or heck even the USPTO, making, using or selling "porn detection in images"?
A simple answer to this question is the answer to the question, "Can I submit an image to USPTO/Google Patents and get a determination of whether the image contains porn?"