*BSD News Article 5770


Return to BSD News archive

Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9203 misc.int-property:547 comp.unix.bsd:5818
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!virtualnews.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Message-ID: <5204.Sep2920.32.3192@virtualnews.nyu.edu>
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:32:31 GMT
References: <1992Sep25.185314.8872@gvl.unisys.com> <1992Sep26.161204.24573@rwwa.COM> <a=+p43j.mcgregor@netcom.com>
Organization: IR
Lines: 38

Scott says that opposition to patents on mental processes---including
mental processes applied in an inessential way to physical objects---
implies opposition to physical process patents. This is a rehash of his
old argument from comp.patents. As before Scott ignores the crucial word
``inessential.''

It is essential that, to cure rubber, you actually take a physical piece
of rubber and do something to it. You can't complete the rubber-curing
process without physical action.

It is not essential that, to apply the LZW algorithm, you actually take
a physical disk and compress the bits on it. The fact that LZW applies
to data on disks, on paper, on tapes, in memory, and in your head,
should make it clear that the physical application of LZW to bits on
disk is not essential to the process.

In article <a=+p43j.mcgregor@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
> Now real physical effects are happening: digital signals on a control
> line in a modem are changing, magnetic polarities in disks are
> changing, phosphorescent displays are changing all according to
> certain processes.

The United States Supreme Court calls such effects ``insignificant''
and, rightly, ignores them in determining whether a process is
patentable.

If you can't patent LZW-in-your-head, then you also can't patent
LZW-writing-to-disk. The ``writing to disk'' part is just too trivial.
Put differently: If you could make a mathematical algorithm patentable
simply by adding ``and then we write the result to a storage device'' to
it, then any novice patent lawyer could turn any mathematical algorithm
into something patentable. This would defeat the entire purpose of
prohibiting such patents.

I'm treading on solid legal ground here. Read what the courts have said
about patenting the Pythagorean theorem; it's exactly what I say above.

---Dan