[yobbo]

> The two example patent numbers that I sent you are U.S. patents, but each of these patents has also been filed as patent applications in the Netherlands. Also, as I’m sure you are aware, your blogpost may be viewed internationally. As a result, you may contribute to someone infringing our patents in any part of the world.

This seems like a gross misunderstanding of patent- and IP-law. I can't know this, but I strongly doubt those patents would be valid anywhere in Europe.

Furthermore, releasing source code and information on an algorithm that someone claims is protected in US would still be akin to explaining an already published patent. Any information he shares beyond what is in the patent is, obviously, not protected. Further still, when patents are granted all information contained in the patent application becomes public domain. This is actually at the core of patent law.

[koolba]

Indeed, if the definition of patent in the EU is anything close to what it is in the USA, publishing an article, source code, or really anything else about the patent or how it works is not infringement. The entire purpose of a patent is to explain how something non-trivial works. The word means “make obvious”.

A patent isn’t some magical license to stifle discussion of a topic. It’s supposed to encourage it!

[pbhjpbhj]

You're correct that parents provide a monopoly on working an invention and do not legally inhibit publicising an invention (as you note, that is one of their aims).

>The word means “make obvious”.//

"Patent" means "open", it comes from a Latin phrase meaning "open letter". Patents were originally letters from the monarch to their subjects on all sorts of issues. When monopolies were granted on working inventions people were notified by the issue of a litterae patentes (some people still style it "letters patent" in British English). This mode of acquiring rights stuck and the name became synonymous.

Patents do have to disclose in detail how an invention can be worked ('sufficiency' in UK law).