Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9230 misc.int-property:557 comp.unix.bsd:5898 Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.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: <16954.Oct101.56.4292@virtualnews.nyu.edu> Date: 1 Oct 92 01:56:42 GMT References: <a=+p43j.mcgregor@netcom.com> <5204.Sep2920.32.3192@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <1992Sep30.143205.3171@rwwa.COM> Organization: IR Lines: 23 In article <1992Sep30.143205.3171@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes: > But the rubber-curing patent > doesn't claim the *algorithm*, it claims the *process*. As defined by the law, ``algorithm'' is a synonym for ``process.'' Most people familiar with the word ``algorithm'' would consider it at least a special case of ``process.'' What distinction are you attempting to draw? > In other words, these effects are insignificant if they amount > to nothing more than ``and then we write the result to a storage device'' > as you noted in the first paragraph. Yes. They're also insignificant if they amount to simply collecting data as input for the algorithm. There are other cases defined by the courts. (It seems to me that ``point of novelty'' is a good way to determine significance, but the CAFC has explicitly rejected ``point of novelty'' for reasons I don't understand, and instead adopted many special-case rules.) ---Dan