Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!tness1!nuchat!flatline!erict
From: erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Phil Katz (PKARC author) sued b
Message-ID: <974@flatline.UUCP>
Date: 27 Jun 88 14:18:14 GMT
References: <151@kadsma.kadsm> <2000002@cpe>
Organization: a flat near the Montrose, Houston, Tx.
Lines: 25

Written 11:15 am  Jun 20, 1988 by kadsma.UUCP!pajerek in cpe:comp.sources.d
>In article <8111@brl-smoke.ARPA> w8sdz@brl.arpa (Keith Petersen) writes:
>>2) The original Ziv-Lempel method is patented (#4,464,650 -- 
>Exactly how is it that this happened? Why is a compression method patentable,
>but the electronic spreadsheet isn't?

Ok, based on general readings about patent laws, here's they way I
think it works....

An algorithm *shouldn't* be patentable.  ie: if I figured out the
quadratic equation today (and no one else ever had before) I shouldn't
be able to patent it.  If I wrote a program that used the quadratic
equation I'd just discovered, I could copyright the program but
not the quadratic equation.

Kinda like patenting electricity or something.  You can't patent laws
of physics, nature, math, or naturally occuring processes, etc.

Unfortunately, I've based this on common sense, something patent and
copyright courts rarely seem to have.
-- 
                                        Skate UNIX or go home, boogie boy...
"But why should I type "rm -r $HOME" if I want to play trek???"
J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
             ..!bellcore!tness1!/