Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!mmdf
From: wjb%cogsci.COG.JHU.EDU@vm1.nodak.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: software patents (was Re: Reusing Minix Source)
Message-ID: <51770@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 91 18:24:41 GMT
Sender: mmdf@ee.udel.edu
Lines: 30


In article <2410@tuvie.UUCP> hp@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Peter Holzer) writes:
>....
>So far as algorithms go, my understanding is that you CAN't patent them.
>But of course you can copyright a particular implementation of one.
>...

	Not true any more.  At least, the US Patent Office has been giving
patents for what are essentially algorithms for the past 5 years or more.
Take a look in gnu.misc.discuss as this comes up periodically there.  If you
have access to "ftp", I believe they keep some information about the "League
for Programming Freedom" which is fighting this trend on prep.ai.mit.edu.

Examples are:

1. RSA encryption algorithm
2. LZW compresssion algorithm (compress, pkzip, etc.)
3. some kind of patent on a method of doing windowing by AT&T (may cover
	backing store)
4. XORing graphics cursors  (every graphics
5. the original setuid patent (now released by AT&T)
6. Patent on concept of a token ring
....

	Whether any of these are enforcable or not, I don't know.  But given
the current legal climate which seems to have swung toward pro-patent
rights, it is worrying.  Don't forget that Polaroid got a Billion? (1e9)
dollars from Kodak in their patent infringement suit...

				Bill Bogstad