From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 11 Oct 92 03:23:38 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <1992Oct6.071314.16966@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
> In any case, I am not trying to PROVE software patents are good.

The LPF has many arguments against software patents---legal arguments,
economic arguments, moral arguments, and quite a few examples of
software patents which have hurt both society and individuals. You are
unable to exhibit a single beneficial software patent. Your only excuse
is that you aren't ``trying to PROVE software patents are good.'' Yet
you aren't admitting that software patents are bad.

The effects of software patents are the combined effects of each
individual software patent. How can you believe that software patents
might possibly be good if you can't come up with any examples where
they've helped? How do you expect to convince anyone else?

> If so, it appears that they
> have been applied for since the early 70s.

You shouldn't have to speculate about the facts. There was one algorithm
patent granted as early as 1968 (to Goetz). A few more patents from
before 1980 appear in the LPF list. What other patents are you talking
about?

> If there was a time when software
> patents weren't possible that time is long since past.

The software industry was already thriving by 1968, when the first
algorithm patent appeared, and was booming by 1980, when the USPTO made
some unwarranted changes in its policies. One might argue when algorithm
patents were first ``possible''; keep in mind that the USPTO has
admitted to granting some algorithm patents which were invalid on their
face. One might also argue that 25 years is not such a long time.

> I don't believe that patents on algorithms per se are granted or
> upheld.

You shouldn't have to speculate about the facts. The LZW patent is at
ftp.uu.net:doc/lzw-patent.Z. Claim 1 appears below. Do you mean to say
that this is not a mental process patent, simply because it talks about
a ``storage means''? Can you come up with any example of the LZW
algorithm _per se_ which does not infringe upon the claim below?

---Dan

   1. In a data compression and data decompression system, compression apparatus
for compressing a stream of data character signals into a compressed stream of
code signals, said compression apparatus comprising

   storage means for storing strings of data character signals encountered in
said stream of data character signals, said stored strings having code signals
associated therewith, respectively,

   means for searching said stream of data character signals by comparing said
stream to said stored strings to determine the longest match therewith,

   means for inserting into said storage means, for storage therein, an extended
string comprising said longest match with said stream of data character signals
extended by the next data character signal following said longest match,

   means for assigning a code signal corresponding to said stored extended
string, and

   means for providing the code signal associated with said longest match so as
to provide said compressed stream of code signals.