Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!cam-cl!news
From: cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Patents and Architecture
Message-ID: <1990Jul3.173620.7929@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: 3 Jul 90 17:36:20 GMT
References: <PCG.90Jun30223813@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk>
Reply-To: cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson)
Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK
Lines: 27

In article <PCG.90Jun30223813@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>
>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.
>
On the contrary, algorithms have been patented in the past. There is the
notorious case of Goetz's read-forward oscillating sort, U.S. Patent 3380029
(April 23, 1968), for example. (Notorious because it is mentioned in Knuth
ACP volume 3, if for no other reason.)

Of course, the question as to whether mathematics is discovered or invented,
as a separate issue from patentability, has been a disputed question for a
long time. "Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott geschaffen, alles andere ist
Menschenwerk" (Leopold Kronecker) is the obligatory quotation here.

Chris Thompson
JANET:    cet1@uk.ac.cam.phx
Internet: cet1%phx.cam.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk