Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Patents and Architecture Message-ID: <21F4V63@xds13.ferranti.com> Date: 3 Jul 90 22:29:45 GMT References: <62864@sgi.sgi.com> <=Y943A7@xds13.ferranti.com> <37297@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <63007@sgi.sgi.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 24 In article pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > Just a moment, here. The setuid bit an *invention*? Hey, this is > ridiculous. It is just a scaled down version of Multics rings. It is a nonobvious idea, and was one of the first software patents issued. > Now that I am at it, another moment: RSA is not software; it is > *mathematics*. What is patentable is the application of that mathematics to encryption. > There is no disagreement whatsoever that mathematics is > never invention, is always discovery, and cannot be patented. And the RSA algorithm is not patented, just the application to encryption. > 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. This just illustrates another problem with the patent laws, and how they're not up to dealing with software. So? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180.