Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice1!bwm
From: bwm@ccice1.UUCP (Bradford W. Miller)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Re: RSA cryptographic algorithm patented?
Message-ID: <350@ccice1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Jul-85 19:57:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccice1.350
Posted: Mon Jul 29 19:57:46 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 04:26:18 EDT
References: <9028@ucbvax.ARPA> <468@stc-b.stc.UUCP> <5799@utzoo.UUCP> <301@baylor.UUCP>
Reply-To: bwm@ccice1.UUCP (Bradford W. Miller)
Organization: CCI Central Engineering, Rochester, NY
Lines: 20

In article <301@baylor.UUCP> peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> One reason why copyright and/or trade secret law are the primary means
>> for protection of software is that most pieces of software are not
>> innovative enough to qualify as inventions.  They are routine exercises
>> of technical skill, rather than striking new inspirations.  Another
>> reason is that the murky situation regarding patents on algorithms has
>
>I've got news for you... LOTS of patented inventions are just routine
>excersises of technical skill.  Just look at some of the junk that has patents
>on it... Software just seems to confuse patent attornys enough that it's
>gotten special status.

This is a good point. In fact, most patents do not in fact hold up in
court. It's mainly a scare tactic. The patent office certainly does not know
what is a 'routine exercise' so having a patent deters those who are
afraid of 'breaking' a patent - though it wouldn't hold up.

Brad Miller
-- 
..[cbrma, ccivax, ccicpg, rayssd, ritcv, rlgvax, rochester]!ccice5!ccice1!bwm