Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9180 misc.int-property:542 comp.unix.bsd:5776 Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!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: <29784.Sep2900.39.5392@virtualnews.nyu.edu> Date: 29 Sep 92 00:39:53 GMT References: <1992Sep26.161204.24573@rwwa.COM> <16862.Sep2705.07.5792@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <1992Sep28.202521.28752@rwwa.COM> Organization: IR Lines: 49 In article <1992Sep28.202521.28752@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes: > I find this reasoning at least credible. I too don't see any problem in the Supreme Court's decision in Diamond v. Diehr. They ignored ``point of novelty,'' which to me looks like the proper approach to patents, but that's just legal fashion. The problem I see is that the USPTO has been granting patents on mental processes, including mathematical algorithms---as well as mental processes with insignificant post-solution activity. (Mental process: LZW compression, as Andy Sherman vividly demonstrated on comp.patents. Insignificant post-solution activity: Writing the result of LZW to a storage device.) Other people worry about a larger class of patents, ``software patents,'' which include such things as the XOR patent. As far as I can tell the only problems with the XOR patent are obviousness and prior art. I see mental processes as being truly outside the scope of patent law, for a variety of reasons. I don't see software in general as being inherently unpatentable. But some people disagree. > And I heartily agree that > patenting of algorithms themselves should *never* be allowed. Fine. That's the important issue. Say goodbye to the LZW patent, the AP patent, the RSA patent, the public-key cryptography patent, the key exchange patent, et al. > | Protection is not the purpose of intellectual property law! Read > | prep.ai.mit.edu:pub/lpf/laf-fallacies.texi. > The LPF is hardly the last word on this topic! That paper isn't an LPF paper; it's a legal article which happens to be available from an LPF archive site. > Contrary to the LPF's assertions, > the Constitution and the federal code recognize the individual's right > to property, and in particular intellectual property, No. > Patent law is just such a protection, balancing society's need for > technological innovation with the property rights of the inventor. No. The sole aim of patent law is to encourage innovation. Any ownership rights which might be granted in the pursuit of this goal are purely incidental. Why don't you read the article? ---Dan