From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:38:07 GMT

I just want to clear up one point:

In article <1992Oct9.002901.14966@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
> The OTA paper cited here before is such a review (again with mixed
> interpretations of the dangers posed by the current system). Third,
> the reasoning for DvsD in the decision states that the court wanted to
> maintain the status quo of granting process patents.

I don't have a complaint with DvD. my complaint is how DvD has been
interpreted by the patent office.

> >Except I can distribute source to *my* code, and binaries for the libraries.
> >Many copyrighted libraries come with runtime versions that explicitly allow
> >this. When you can't tell what's OK to distribute or not you kill source
> >distribution dead.

> You can still distribute source.  Because YOU are a member. Other
> members (even ones who don't contribute patents of their own and who
> don't distribute software for gain) can use it without any fear of
> infringement. Only someone who is not a member, and who redistributes the
> source for a fee is at risk, and only if there is protected material
> (inadvertently or intetionally) in the sources.

But I *want* to make my code available for anyone to use and improve on,
and even to profit from. Even if *I* don't profit. I've published software
with this explicit goal, and in at least one case I've seen it or the ideas
in it incorporated in a commercial program.

Why do I do this? Because I can, because I can afford to. If you had to vet
everyone who wanted to use a program it would completely and utterly destroy
the free software community. And I consider this unacceptable, unless you
can provide a countervailing benefit that will balance this immense loss of
innovation and creativity.

> >Yes, GNU licensing when applied to anything but complete programs is a mess.

> I suppose this won't be any better, but it won't be any worse either.

Yes, it's worse, because you don't have the choice of not taking part. GNU
exists, but I can still distribute *my* code without worrying about it.

> >How about one recorded in a mathematics textbook? How is LZW any more a
> >physical process than Euler's method? 

> LZW may be a mathematical algorithm.  But I don't agree that LZW is
> patented. My interpretation of the claims is that use of LZW for data
> media compression, or (possibly) for transmission (modems) is all that
> is pattented.  That's an application to the real world.

Since LZW contains all the information needed to extract the original data,
it's of minimal use for encryption, and that's the only alternative you can
come up with. If every use of an algorithm is covered by the patent, how does
that differ from a patent on the algorithm?
-- 
Peter da Silva                                         `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                              'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012           "Heeft u vandaag al uw wolf geknuffeld?"
+1 713 274 5180                       "Tjener, denne ret er stadig levende."
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6384 misc.int-property:1167 alt.suit.att-bsdi:478 comp.unix.bsd:7224