Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9262 misc.int-property:562 comp.unix.bsd:5933 Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!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: <1992Oct1.230931.7833@netcom.com> Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) References: <10880.Sep3008.43.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <1992Oct1.090209.9474@netcom.com> <1992Oct1.134749.5671@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:09:31 GMT Lines: 61 In article <1992Oct1.134749.5671@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes: >It's not hard to imagine that within our lifetimes, the brain will be >readable as a medium also. (Some progress has already been made in >this area.) Do you mean that when that happens, there won't be any >"mental processes" at all? No merely that it will be possible to describe a physical process that takes place in the brain. One still will only be able to speculate on what happens except at an observable behavior level. I think that Dennet & Hofstatder make a good case that brain and mind are different, even though it may be possible to simulate brain processes in silicon. But if you are a Behavioralist, then the difference doesn't matter since you don't care about mental states. >Regardless of that problem, it's ridiculous to claim that the end >result of LZW is a rearrangement of the polarity of electrons. The >end result is the transformation of information, regardless of the >medium. This is the essence of what algorithms are. I've never disagreed that the end result of LZW is a rearrangement of information, not polarities of electrons. What I have said is that one could construct a physical process patent that described the transformation of polarities of electrons without appealing to mental states, or even without assigning the polarities significance of being information. It just focusses on the physical world changes. In such a patent, the fact that you are modifying the polarities is essential, because that is EXACTLY what you are claiming is the benefit. If you are comfortable with this not being a software patent then so am I. But if the inputs and outputs and other characteristics are defined correctly, a computer system that effectuated the changes as a result of running an LZW program (not the theoretical algorithm, but the actual electronic switching) could infringe. Certain mechanical cam systems would be equally infringing. So this wouldn't be "the LZW algorithm patent" (because algorithms aren't patentable) but it would be the "patent that restricts use of LZW to achieve increased disk storage packing densities. I agree with Mr. Margolin that such a patent shouldn't be extended to prohibit LZW application to other domains (such as modems) unless they too are explicity claimed (presumably by showing how one could convert polarities on media to control signals on a wire and vice versa). Even though this could be a "physical process patent" without any appeal to software algorithms, I suspect the effect on software use would be the same as if it were a "software patent" because the reason someone usually wants to use an algorithm is to achieve some real world result, and not just to do some theoretical mental world only transformations. This is the same sense in which no one cares if I can mentally cure rubber in my head but the care very much if I can do it efficiently in the real world. If someone can change bits on a disk using LZW and only their mind (using psycho-kinesis) that too would be very interesting. -- 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