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