Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9242 misc.int-property:559 comp.unix.bsd:5909 Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!sdd.hp.com!wupost!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!mcgregor From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors. Message-ID: <1992Oct1.091739.10285@netcom.com> Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) References: <5204.Sep2920.32.3192@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <1992Sep30.035812.124@netcom.com> <1adcdkINNljf@early-bird.think.com> Distribution: inet Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 09:17:39 GMT Lines: 40 In article <1adcdkINNljf@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: >In article <1992Sep30.035812.124@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes: > >Changing signals on a modem control line is a physical process, as is >specific physical transformation that is performed using the result. >That's what makes the physical transformation inessential. I don't follow this. This seems to be saying that it is inessential because it is physical. But this seems to be assuming that which must be proved, namely that the algorithm is what is important and not its reduction to physical practice. >So, a modem that performs compression is a patentable device, as is a disk >interface that compresses. But the compression algorithm itself isn't >patentable. If I find a new use for this algorithm, I should be able to >patent that as well, without infringing the patent on a compressing modem. I agree. The patent should only be allowed to cover the end results that it promises, not all end results that might result from any application of some intermediate algorithm. >This raises a question about obviousness, though. Given the well-known >existence of data compression algorithms, is there anything unobvious about >applying a particular one to any particular problem? The LZW algorithm >itself may be novel, but algorithms aren't supposed to be patentable. I think that is a very fair criticism of what may be wrong with the LZW algorithm. It would seem to me that the issue would be the special usefulness of that particular algorithm, and whether the prior art taught away from applying that algorithm in that way. -- Scott L. McGregor mcgregor@netcom.com President tel: 408-985-1824 Prescient Software, Inc. fax: 408-985-1936 3494 Yuba Avenue San Jose, CA 95117