Xref: utzoo news.admin:2996 news.sysadmin:815 comp.sources.wanted:4531 comp.sources.d:2467 comp.unix.xenix:2661 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!humming!simcha From: simcha@humming.UUCP (Simcha Lerner) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin,comp.sources.wanted,comp.sources.d,comp.unix.xenix Subject: Re: Please remove PD-YACC sources from your machine IMMEDIATELY Message-ID: <232@humming.UUCP> Date: 11 Jul 88 06:04:55 GMT References: <3532@rpp386.UUCP> <135@dcs.UUCP> <235@pigs.UUCP> <4765@killer.UUCP> Reply-To: simcha@humming.UUCP (Simcha Lerner) Followup-To: comp.sources.d Organization: Kurzweil A.I. Waltham, Mass. Lines: 48 In article <4765@killer.UUCP> richardh@killer.UUCP (Richard Hargrove) writes: > >Ditto the above if they think they can copyright (or patent) an algorithm. >(I think I'll patent addition with carry this week ;-). > >richard hargrove >...!{ihnp4 | codas | cbosgd}!killer!richardh >-------------------------------------------- Alas, I must disagree. Having spent a lot of time on these issues with expensive lawyers (thankfully in a preventative, not curative mode), I have a different understanding. Algorithms ARE patentable, and not just the hardware implementation, as Mr. Hargrove felt was "logical". For example, the RSA public key encryption algorithm has been patented, solely on a paper based exposition of its powers and abilities (along with the algorithm, of course). What would prevent Mr. Hargrove from patenting his "add with carry" algorithm has nothing to do with its being an algorithm, but rather with it being "either part of existing art, or obvious from existing art", which is one (of many) potential disqualifications an application must face. NOTE: I have set the followup to comp.sources.d, since this is becoming too general a thread to clutter up the world. I too must disclaim the above with the fact that I am not a lawyer, and therefore the above must be treated as hearsay. :-) Simcha Lerner ...(harvard | talcott)!humming!simcha disclaimer: My employer has his own lawyers, his own opinions about patents, and his own opinion as to whether I am entitled to publicly express an opinion. Therefore, in accordance with section VII, article 3, paragraph 2 of the usenet code of ethics, I take full responsibility for the entire contents of this posting. This posting is (not) Copyright (C) 1988 ... (FYI: do you know that under International Treaty, the CASE of the "C" in Copyright and (C) is significant - get the wrong case and you endanger your international copyright protection! (and they recently changed the mandated case of the symbol from (c) to (C) (or is it the other way around?). It is a lot of fun having to rebuild all your ROMs to change that one character!)