Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!sae!sae.com!kmo
From: kmo@sae.com (Mike Ovington)
Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors.
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.191611.17045@sae.com>
Sender: news@sae.com
Organization: Template Software
References: <10880.Sep3008.43.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <1992Oct1.090209.9474@netcom.com> <1992Oct1.134749.5671@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> <1992Oct1.230931.7833@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:16:11 GMT
Lines: 41
In article <1992Oct1.230931.7833@netcom.com>, mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct1.134749.5671@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes:
|>
|> >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.
Focussing on physical world changes misses the crux of what a software
patent is trying to protect. It isn't trying to protect the physical changes,
it is trying to protect the thought process/algorithm that went into
creating those physical changes.
Say I create a new sorting algorithm which, for large volumes of data, is
10 times faster than any existing method. A patent on that software would
prevent other people from using my algorithm without permission.
They can still sort their data with other algorithms, which means they can
have the same input and same output, i.e. the same physical world changes.
I would not be able to tell if they are infringing by looking at physical
changes in their disks, RAM or anything else. I could only tell if they
are infringing by examining the non-physical algorithm that they used to
sort the data. Even if the speed of the algorithm used by the alleged
infringers were the same as mine, I can't be sure that they didn't just
invent an equally good sort routine.
It is the mental process, not the physical process that seems to be protected,
at that strikes me as out of the patent realm.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
Michael S. Ovington Template Software
uunet!sae!mikeo 13100 Worldgate Drive, Suite 340
mikeo@sae.com Herndon, VA 22070-4382