*BSD News Article 5850


Return to BSD News archive

Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9230 misc.int-property:557 comp.unix.bsd:5898
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!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: <16954.Oct101.56.4292@virtualnews.nyu.edu>
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:56:42 GMT
References: <a=+p43j.mcgregor@netcom.com> <5204.Sep2920.32.3192@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <1992Sep30.143205.3171@rwwa.COM>
Organization: IR
Lines: 23

In article <1992Sep30.143205.3171@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
> But the rubber-curing patent
> doesn't claim the *algorithm*, it claims the *process*.

As defined by the law, ``algorithm'' is a synonym for ``process.''

Most people familiar with the word ``algorithm'' would consider it at
least a special case of ``process.''

What distinction are you attempting to draw?

> In other words, these effects are insignificant if they amount
> to nothing more than ``and then we write the result to a storage device''
> as you noted in the first paragraph.

Yes. They're also insignificant if they amount to simply collecting data
as input for the algorithm. There are other cases defined by the courts.
(It seems to me that ``point of novelty'' is a good way to determine
significance, but the CAFC has explicitly rejected ``point of novelty''
for reasons I don't understand, and instead adopted many special-case
rules.)

---Dan