Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:2386 comp.org.usenix:1902
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!hsdndev!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: The chilling effect of software patents
Message-ID: <7802:Feb910:14:3891@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 9 Feb 91 10:14:38 GMT
References: <b0hp2o.e8d@wang.com> <3735:Feb822:24:5991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <10957@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: IR
Lines: 31

In article <10957@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
  [ quoting a Usenix mailing ]
> Originally they ruled that a mathematical
> theorem could not be patented.  In the transition from theorem to algorithm
> to implementation, the ruling was reversed.

Uh, no. To my knowledge the original precedents are still going strong.
The problem is that the Patent Office folks don't seem to be able to
recognize mathematics when it's shoved in their face.

> I checked "pro-active".  If Usenix doesn't want to take this job on, it
> seems to me that it's time to form a foundation to collect the $2000,
> get a good writeup on the prior art on include files which goes back
> a lot longer than 15 years, and blow this idiot patent away.

On the other hand, once you have a good enough writeup, you can just
distribute that and save the $2000. Something based on the prior art
doesn't infringe a patent: if you get sued, you just show the court the
references to prior art and they won't even take a second glance at the
patent.

It would be much more interesting to challenge the compression patents,
on several grounds: they describe purely mathematical inventions; they
claim all implementations of the methods; and, of course, they are
obvious from the prior art. To convince a court of these things would
take a lot of work but would be well worth it.

The best solution would be for the LPF to push through legislation
eliminating these patents permanently.

---Dan