Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3169 comp.misc:12624 comp.dcom.modems:9847
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uupsi!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.misc,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: hayes lawsuit
Message-ID: <4VFB=I@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: 20 May 91 14:34:19 GMT
References: <TMB.91May13041549@volterra.ai.mit.edu> <TMB.91May19100536@volterra.ai.mit.edu> <14833@ulysses.att.com>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 15

In article <14833@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
> The fundamental question we have to answer is this:  if software
> patents are to be disallowed, what alternative mechanism would you
> propose to encourage people to publish new algorithms?

Since one cannot sell software without effectively publishing the algorithms
used, particularly for interface specifications which seems to be where the
majority of these patents occur (XOR cursor, guard times, offscreen bitmaps,
setuid, etc), I think this is pretty much a moot point.

Can you come up with a counterexample: a new algorithm that was not published
in any form prior to the appearance of software patents?
-- 
Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180;
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012;         `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"