Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9328 misc.int-property:568 comp.unix.bsd:6037 Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!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: <12962.Oct320.42.3592@virtualnews.nyu.edu> Date: 3 Oct 92 20:42:35 GMT References: <BvBp1v.16J@lerami.lerctr.org> <10880.Sep3008.43.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <1992Oct1.090209.9474@netcom.com> Organization: IR Lines: 37 I pointed out the fundamental problem of mental process patents: there is no reliable way to tell whether two mental processes are the same. In response Scott McGregor wrote: > At this point I disagree. The minute you apply it to disk or tape or > memory to can in fact test if the inputs (i.e. physical state of the > input media or signals on the input lines) were the same, you can tell > if the outputs were the same (ditto), and you can tell if the equipment > mediating the transformation (a computer in this case) were the same. Scott is saying that any two algorithms which produce the same results are, in fact, the same. But this isn't true. According to common sense (and the courts) the two algorithms have to produce the same results _in the same way_. Otherwise they're not the same. To put it differently: A patent examiner following Scott's recipe for determining equivalence would look at insertion sort, and quick sort, and not be able to tell the difference. > Because that's exactly where the benfit lies: in a > disk that can store more, or a faster modem--not in a particular > intermediate state that is invisible. You cannot patent all processes which achieve a given result. In particular, you can't patent the concept of a faster modem. > > But mental processes > >are inherently unpatentable. You simply cannot tell when two of them are > >the same. > Again, I agree. Fine. The burden is now on you to explain how a patent examiner, faced with ``The Fast Foo Method of Sorting Data'' and ``The Fast Bar Method of Sorting Data,'' can reliably determine whether Foo is prior art for Bar, or vice versa. ---Dan