Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mb2c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!mpr
From: mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina)
Newsgroups: net.crypt,net.legal
Subject: Re: RSA cryptographic algorithm patented?
Message-ID: <250@mb2c.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 16:15:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: mb2c.250
Posted: Thu Aug 29 16:15:18 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 07:13:53 EDT
References: <9028@ucbvax.ARPA> <3154@cornell.UUCP> <1082@callan.UUCP>
Organization: Michigan Bell, Southfield, MI
Lines: 20
Xref: watmath net.crypt:446 net.legal:2214

> > I'm no lawyer, but from my reading of general articles on patent law,
> > an algorithm is one of the things that specifically CAN'T be patented.
> 
> I just recently found a book at the Caltech bookstore called "Software Law,
> a Primer", and bought it.  It was quite fascinating.
> One of the sample cases given was some sort of control system for a chemical
> plant that used a specific equation to control something or other.  This was
> patentable.  The patent does not cover all uses of that equation - just the
> use of it control that specific part of a chemical plant doing what that
> specific chemical plant was doing ( I don't have the book with me, so I am
> being a bit vague here.  Sorry ).
> 
I am quite sure that an algorithm can not be patented.  However, the process
can be patented.  For instance, when the telephone was patented it made perfect
use of applied science.  The process of turning a "voice" into an electrical
pulse and converting it back again.  The patent did not cover that algorithm.
But the tangible product making the conversion was patented.  This may be one
of the most valuable patents ever issued under the U. S. Patent Office.

					Mark Reina