Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!monsoon.Berkeley.EDU!joonsong
From: joonsong@monsoon.Berkeley.EDU (Suk-Hyun Song)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: thought Dillon and friends would like to know
Message-ID: <1990Jul29.024841.1000@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 29 Jul 90 02:48:41 GMT
References: <1990Jul27.204559.26305@athena.mit.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Reply-To: joonsong@monsoon.Berkeley.EDU (Joon Song)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 29

In article <1990Jul27.204559.26305@athena.mit.edu> rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (The Veteran Cosmic Rocker) writes:
>pass it on...
>Grrrrrr!
>DAMN software patents!
>
>From: rms@AI.MIT.EDU
>Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
>Subject: Imagine if you couldn't use compress any more
>Message-ID: <9007271812.AA09756@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
>It's not imaginary--it's happening.
>
>The people who wrote the compress program and put it in the public
>domain had no way of knowing that a patent was pending for the
>algorithm.  The patent was later granted, and now Unisys says we're
>not allowed to run compress without their permission.

My understanding of this was that Unisys had patented a hardware
implementation of the LZW algorithm.  The important point here is
that the implementation of the algorithm was patented, not the
algorithm itself.  I couldn't imagine how a company would be able
to patent an algorithm, especially one that they did not invent.

Imagine what would happen if for instance, someone managed to patent
the quicksort algorithm.

Algorithms are just ideas, and ideas themselves can not be patented.

Joon Song
joonsong@ocf.berkeley.edu