Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9451 misc.int-property:580 comp.unix.bsd:6395 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.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: <11738.Oct1103.23.3892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> Date: 11 Oct 92 03:23:38 GMT References: <1992Oct3.105257.5327@netcom.com> <id.TFST.9F7@ferranti.com> <1992Oct6.071314.16966@netcom.com> Organization: IR Lines: 64 In article <1992Oct6.071314.16966@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes: > In any case, I am not trying to PROVE software patents are good. The LPF has many arguments against software patents---legal arguments, economic arguments, moral arguments, and quite a few examples of software patents which have hurt both society and individuals. You are unable to exhibit a single beneficial software patent. Your only excuse is that you aren't ``trying to PROVE software patents are good.'' Yet you aren't admitting that software patents are bad. The effects of software patents are the combined effects of each individual software patent. How can you believe that software patents might possibly be good if you can't come up with any examples where they've helped? How do you expect to convince anyone else? > If so, it appears that they > have been applied for since the early 70s. You shouldn't have to speculate about the facts. There was one algorithm patent granted as early as 1968 (to Goetz). A few more patents from before 1980 appear in the LPF list. What other patents are you talking about? > If there was a time when software > patents weren't possible that time is long since past. The software industry was already thriving by 1968, when the first algorithm patent appeared, and was booming by 1980, when the USPTO made some unwarranted changes in its policies. One might argue when algorithm patents were first ``possible''; keep in mind that the USPTO has admitted to granting some algorithm patents which were invalid on their face. One might also argue that 25 years is not such a long time. > I don't believe that patents on algorithms per se are granted or > upheld. You shouldn't have to speculate about the facts. The LZW patent is at ftp.uu.net:doc/lzw-patent.Z. Claim 1 appears below. Do you mean to say that this is not a mental process patent, simply because it talks about a ``storage means''? Can you come up with any example of the LZW algorithm _per se_ which does not infringe upon the claim below? ---Dan 1. In a data compression and data decompression system, compression apparatus for compressing a stream of data character signals into a compressed stream of code signals, said compression apparatus comprising storage means for storing strings of data character signals encountered in said stream of data character signals, said stored strings having code signals associated therewith, respectively, means for searching said stream of data character signals by comparing said stream to said stored strings to determine the longest match therewith, means for inserting into said storage means, for storage therein, an extended string comprising said longest match with said stream of data character signals extended by the next data character signal following said longest match, means for assigning a code signal corresponding to said stored extended string, and means for providing the code signal associated with said longest match so as to provide said compressed stream of code signals.