Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!ics!kolender From: kolender@ics.uci.edu (Kurt Olender) Newsgroups: trial.misc.legal.software Subject: Re: Patents (was Re: Copyrights) Message-ID: Date: 3 Aug 90 22:25:02 GMT References: <1990Jul27.014947.19528@hellgate.utah.edu> > <2096:Jul2900:53:4390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <9492@goofy.Apple.COM> <1990Aug01.022905.26807@l Organization: ICS Dept, UC Irvine Lines: 19 Nntp-Posting-Host: siam.ics.uci.edu In-reply-to: brad@looking.on.ca's message of 1 Aug 90 02:29:05 GMT I too at first thought that if a patent could be applied to a physical process (like a process to manufacture a chemical product) it should be applicable to an algorithm. But thinking about it further, an algorithm is a process that can (theoretically at least) be applied by the human mind that has results that can (theoretically at least again) exist only in the human mind. Suppose that Gauss had patented his method for solving simultaneous equations. You legally could not use that method to solve a 2x2 system of equations in your head in a high school algebra class without someone paying Gauss a fee. This seems on the face of it a ridiculous concept. The fact that a computer can be used to solve this problem is essentially irrelevant. You don't need a computer to use the algorithm. And that in my opinion is the fundamental difference between an abstract algorithm and a physical "algorithm". A physical process REQUIRES a realization outside the human mind for its application. A computational algorithm does not, and for that reason should not be patentable.