Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9886 misc.int-property:770 comp.unix.bsd:7691 Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.hawaii.edu!ames!think.com!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!mcgregor From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors. Message-ID: <1992Nov10.031043.10436@netcom.com> Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) References: <1992Nov4.152642.13664@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1992Nov5.074758.29460@netcom.com> <5384.Nov819.10.4592@virtualnews.nyu.edu> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:10:43 GMT Lines: 45 In article <5384.Nov819.10.4592@virtualnews.nyu.edu> brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes: >In article <1992Nov5.074758.29460@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes: >> The RSA patent doesn't prevent ALL applications of multiplications of >> large primes, only the application to cryptology, a narrower domain. > >``A mathematical algorithm is not made statutory by `attempting to limit >the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.' >_Diehr_, 450 U.S. at 191, 209 USPQ at 10.'' I assume that Bernstein interprets this quote as being at odds with my statement. If Bernstein is correct in his interpretation that RSA is nothing more than a mathematical algortithm, limited to a particular technological environment, then I would conclude that an infringer such as Zimmerman is at no risk from the RSA patent and may act accordingly, as the courts would undoubtedly strike the patent down in a court case with Bernstein's reasoning as justification Some readers might reasonably suspect that the courts may in fact treat the situation somewhat differently, regarding the issuance of the patent as indication that there is something else (process?) other than mere mathematical algorithm which made this statuatory material in the first place. I would find the courts reasoning upon actually facing this particular patent and Bernstein's arguments interesting, but I cannot be as sure of the ultimate result as Bernstein apparently can: >The U.S. Supreme Court does not ``appreciate this difference.'' I'll wait until I see this particular case decided as Bernstein suggests. Paul Heckel's comments in the current CACM raise some questions about how they would really decide if faced with the case. -- Scott L. McGregor mcgregor@netcom.com President tel: 408-985-1824 Prescient Software, Inc. fax: 408-985-1936 3494 Yuba Avenue San Jose, CA 95117-2967