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: <KOLENDER.90Aug8111102@gambetta.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 8 Aug 90 18:09:39 GMT
References: <1990Jul27.014947.19528@hellgate.utah.edu> >
	<MERNST.90Jul27145740@emu.lcs.mit.edu>
	<rodney.649107377@dali.ipl.rpi.edu>
	<2096:Jul2900:53:4390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
	<MERNST.90Jul28233614@emu.lcs.mit.edu> <9492@goofy.Apple.COM>
	<1990Aug01.022905.26807@l
Organization: ICS Dept, UC Irvine
Lines: 46
Nntp-Posting-Host: gambetta.ics.uci.edu
In-reply-to: brad@looking.on.ca's message of 7 Aug 90 20:56:53 GMT

Brad Templeton writes:

   ... <other text removed> ...
   A mechanism *is* an algorithm to me.  The thing that's valuable about
   a patented mechanism is "how it works" not how it is made.
-----

I disagree. The thing that is VALUABLE about a mechanism is what it makes or
does.  One of the points that must be satisfied to obtain a patent is to show
that the result of the mechanism or process is useful in some way.  And in the
end, it's those results (or the capability to obtain them) that you are
selling.

Rube Goldberg used to conceive of lots of devices with interesting "how's"
that didn't do much that was useful.

Now what is the result of the new algorithm?

If it's a mathematical or mental entity, then I believe that it should not be
patentable, for the same reasons that mathematics has never been
patentable.  The results can exist only in someone's mind, or as
visual/audio/electronic/etc representations of that thought.  A compressed
data stream is simply an electronic representation of a mathematical
operation.

Let's look at it from a more practical viewpoint.  How can you enforce a
patent on the use of a method to produce some result if someone can
effectively use the method and keep the result solely in their mind?

If it's a physical entity, then it should be patentable under the conditions
currently existing.


    a) What about the kind of invention that is "waiting to happen", such that
    one person is merely first, and others independently discover it.

    b) What about inventions that are truly obvious -- where it's the problem
    that's new, and not the solution.

I am not disagreeing with you about these points, but they are
irrelevant from the standpoint of what I am trying to state, which is:

There IS a fundamental difference in algorithms.  Some produce results which
are merely mathematical objects or their representations.  Others produce
results which are solely physical objects.  The former should not be
patentable.