Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3156 comp.misc:12616 comp.dcom.modems:9835 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ulysses!ulysses.att.com!smb From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.misc,comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: hayes lawsuit Message-ID: <14833@ulysses.att.com> Date: 20 May 91 01:36:36 GMT References: Sender: netnews@ulysses.att.com Distribution: usa Lines: 15 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? (I'd rather argue the question using RSA as an example; its originality, novelty, and utility are beyond question. The Hayes patent may not qualify as new -- but the very difficulty of resolving that issue makes it a bad hook upon which to hang the policy question.) I'm perfectly serious. In an industry where fortunes are being made, and where many vendors have gone overboard on copy protection because of piracy, how are we to encourage publication, if not by patents? The issue of abuse, either statutory (i.e., a 17 year period, which is too long for software) or in the Patent Office (granting dubious patents due to lack of expertise) are, I would say, separable questions.