From: dgay@di.epfl.ch (David Gay)
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: 3 Oct 92 11:44:02 GMT
	<1992Oct1.134749.5671@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com>
	<1992Oct1.230931.7833@netcom.com>
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
In-reply-to: mcgregor@netcom.com's message of 1 Oct 92 23:09:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.230931.7833@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
   In article <1992Oct1.134749.5671@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes:
   >Regardless of that problem, it's ridiculous to claim that the end 
   >result of LZW is a rearrangement of the polarity of electrons.  The
   >end result is the transformation of information, regardless of the
   >medium.  This is the essence of what algorithms are.

   I've never disagreed that the end result of LZW is a rearrangement of
   information, not polarities of electrons.  What I have said is that
   one could construct a physical process patent that described the
   transformation of polarities of electrons without appealing to mental
   states, or even without assigning the polarities significance of being
   information.  It just focusses on the physical world changes. In such
   a patent, the fact that you are modifying the polarities is essential,
   because that is EXACTLY what you are claiming is the benefit.  If you
   are comfortable with this not being a software patent then so am I.
   But if the inputs and outputs and other characteristics are defined
   correctly, a computer system that effectuated the changes as a result
   of running an LZW program (not the theoretical algorithm, but the
   actual electronic switching) could infringe. Certain mechanical cam
   systems would be equally infringing. So this wouldn't be "the LZW
   algorithm patent" (because algorithms aren't patentable) but it would be
   the "patent that restricts use of LZW to achieve increased  disk
   storage packing densities. I agree with Mr. Margolin that such a
   patent shouldn't be extended to prohibit LZW application to other
   domains (such as modems) unless they too are explicity claimed
   (presumably by showing how one could convert polarities on media to
   control signals on a wire and vice versa). 

   Even though this could be a "physical process patent" without any
   appeal to software algorithms, I suspect the effect on software use
   would be the same as if it were a "software patent" because the reason
   someone usually wants to use an algorithm is to achieve some real
   world result, and not just to do some theoretical mental world only
   transformations.

In other words, you are using the existence of the computer as a
physical element capable of following algorithms as a way of extending
patents to cover algorithms (as now these algorithms can have a
"physical" existence).  This smacks of sophistry to me. If you feel
that algorithms should be patentable, say so (and I can understand
people having that point of view).

I would argue that computers are basically information processing
devices (*), and that the existence of the physical storage systems
(and in this case, the polarities on the media) is inessential. LZW is
obviously an information-transforming process, the fact that this
information has to be physically stored at all points in time (be it
in memory, on disk, etc) for it to be useful is beside the point.

--

*: When the computers start controlling external devices, things
change.

   -- 

   Scott L. McGregor		mcgregor@netcom.com
   President			tel: 408-985-1824
   Prescient Software, Inc.	fax: 408-985-1936
   3494 Yuba Avenue
   San Jose, CA 95117

David Gay		dgay@di.epfl.ch
Nothing much at all.
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
Switzerland
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk