Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.crypt
Subject: Re: RSA cryptographic algorithm patented?
Message-ID: <5954@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 13:03:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5954
Posted: Fri Sep 13 13:03:07 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Sep-85 13:03:07 EDT
References: <358@cubsvax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 48

[Warning:  I'm not a lawyer.  Consult an expert before doing anything rash.]

> ... how can you patent
> something that's already been published and generally distributed?

You cannot *apply* for a patent on something that has been public
knowledge for more than some short time (six months?).  However, patents
can take a long time to work their way through the patent office.  It is
the date of the application that matters in this regard, not the date
when the patent is issued.

> The problem here is: suppose, on obtaining the published paper that I said
> to myself, "This is a great idea, and it has lots of commercial potential."
> I develop a commercial product based on the paper. Then someone comes along
> sometime later and tells me that I'm violating a patent that didn't exist
> when I read the paper and developed my product.

This is technically known as "bad luck".  Since you are making money off
someone else's idea without any attempt to pay them royalties, I fear I
would have little sympathy.

> I notice nothing in the paper about a patent being applied for.

"Patent pending" is an attempt to warn people that a patent is in the works.
It conveys no property rights and is not a legal requirement.

> I do notice,
> however, that the work was supported by the NSF and the Office of Naval
> Research...

Interesting point, but this whole area is complicated and slippery.  The
government has made some attempt at balancing "it was developed with public
money, so it should belong to the public" against "if we cannot protect our
discovery from ripoff artists, why bother doing the hard work needed to
make a commercial product out of it?".  A lot would depend on the detailed
terms of the research funding.  The Gatorade decision doesn't necessarily
generalize to cover the RSA patent.

> Anyway, does this mean that one shouldn't try to develop products based on
> published papers, because the authors may apply for a patent sometime later
> and screw one?

It means that one should be ethical about it and offer to pay the authors
a royalty!  If they decline, fine.  If not, you're out a bit of cash but
you have clear permission to use the idea.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry