Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9330 misc.int-property:569 comp.unix.bsd:6038 Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!wupost!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!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: <13070.Oct320.48.1492@virtualnews.nyu.edu> Date: 3 Oct 92 20:48:14 GMT References: <1992Sep30.143205.3171@rwwa.COM> <16954.Oct101.56.4292@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <1992Oct1.093213.11147@netcom.com> Organization: IR Lines: 15 In article <1992Oct1.093213.11147@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes: > This is the crux of our whole semantic arguing isn't. No, Scott, it's a ridiculous side issue. > At the same time, the patent law has always > explicitly allowed "process" patents but forbidden "algorithm" > patents. No. The courts define a ``mathematical algorithm'' as a procedure for solving a mathematical problem. An ``algorithm'' is, in general, patentable, because ``algorithm'' is synonymous with ``process'' in the patent world. A ``mathematical algorithm'' is not patentable. ---Dan