Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!tness7!ninja!sys1!techsup!cpe!tif
From: tif@cpe.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Phil Katz (PKARC author) sued b
Message-ID: <2000002@cpe>
Date: 23 Jun 88 13:46:00 GMT
References: <151@kadsma.kadsm>
Lines: 24
Nf-ID: #R:kadsma.kadsm:151:cpe:2000002:000:979
Nf-From: cpe.UUCP!tif    Jun 23 08:46:00 1988


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?

I do not know anything about patent laws (or any other laws come to think
of it) but ...

To take a stab at your question:

It seems more appropriate to patent a specific method rather than a general
process.  For example, you wouldn't patent the concept of refining oil, but
the specific method of doing so.

And, *I* think the courts would understand that spreadsheets have been used
since the beginning of time (well, almost :-) ).  Moving an age-old
concept to a computer is hardly patentable.  ("I'll patent doing Accounts
Payable electronically" :-) )

			Paul Chamberlain
			Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp.
			ihnp4!sys1!cpe!tif