Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!odin!pcg From: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Patents and Architecture Message-ID: Date: 30 Jun 90 21:38:13 GMT References: <62864@sgi.sgi.com> <=Y943A7@xds13.ferranti.com> <37297@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <63007@sgi.sgi.com> Sender: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP Organization: Coleg Prifysgol Cymru Lines: 31 In-reply-to: peter@ficc.ferranti.com's message of 28 Jun 90 12:01:43 GMT Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.55.4 of Thu Nov 23 1989 on athene (berkeley-unix) In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: There are some things that are genuinely innovative (for example, the RSA algorithm or the setuid bit, or windowing in the first place), and others that are obvious to any competant practitioner in the field but... Just a moment, here. The setuid bit an *invention*? Hey, this is ridiculous. It is just a scaled down version of Multics rings. Now that I am at it, another moment: RSA is not software; it is *mathematics*. There is no disagreement whatsoever that mathematics is never invention, is always discovery, and cannot be patented. They had to try to fool the patent office with a patent claim describing an encryption device based on RSA (and the claim has been thrown out in other countries as ridiculous) because mathematics cannot be patented. There are good reasons for which mathematics and algorithms cannot be patented. I think that nearly all software not used in an industrial process could easily be labeled as mathematics or algorithms. B-Trees, whatever. Incidentally, I believe that most protection for investment in developing software should be trade mark and industrial design protection, if any. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk