From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Look & Feel
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 09:27:35 EDT

In article <1992Aug13.140809.24048@mcs.drexel.edu> uyyifrah@mcs.drexel.edu (Y Yifrah [y^2]) writes:
>
>Mathematical and mental processes are supposed to be unpatentable...

Dare I guess that this idea was established long before the advent of the
modern computer--as in, when all that it would have meant to say "mathematical
and mental processes are not patentable" was essentially "you cannot
prevent someone from *thinking* in a certain way..."


>What computer algorithm are is up for debate, but its obvious that the
>Patent office is way over its head. With more and more patents being applied
>for every day. They are just not able to make consistent decisions when it
>comes to software...

I suspect this is definitely a problem--but I think that it's natural to expect
that patent law, like most other law, will have to evolve with changing times
and technology.


>BTW, who said that patents were better? Better for who? Patents give the
>holder a legalized monopoly. Copyrights work differently, they give the holder
>a claim on a specific work. Patents are a much more powerful protection for
>a software company to have, and much more desirable. They last very long,
>and have become the "new" battleground for R&D companies, with blocking and
>clustering being the order of the day...

I think you are wrong here.  Patents have a *much* shorter term than do
copyrights.  Patents alaso allow great leeway for derivative works, while
copyrights allow none.

The fact of the matter is that copyrights were never intended to be
applicable to "inventions," for *copyrights* are completely stifling.  For
creative works such as, for example, writing, it is not considered to be at all
stifling to tell people that they may not copy a written work, or make changes
to a particular work (to produce a derivative work).

Rather, it is considered that creativity is best encouraged by forcing other
writers to start out on their own, and develop entirely new works.

To apply a copyright to scientific innovation would be to give very long-
lasting rights to control an entire line of innovation (derivative works).
Patents, on the other hand, give a short-term right to a specific innovation,
with absolutely no rights to derivative works.

As such, anybody else can use patented innovations for *free* simply by
introducing their own innovation/improvement.  This (presumably) provides
a great incentive to continue the process of innovation, rather than to
just sit back and use what others have done.


Here's an example.  The RSA cryptosystem is a well-known example of a patented
algorithm.  (For those who aren't familiar with it, the RSA cryptosystem is a
"public-key" cryptosystem, in which anyone can encode a message, but only the
authorized receiver can decode the message.  It makes life much easier than
having to pass around secret encryption.decryption keys.)

Under patent law, others (specifically Rabin and Williams) have been able to
develop variations of the RSA cryptosystem that can be used without infringing
the RSA patent.  (It happens that these innovations have not become popular
since, in addition to some improvement, some additional problems are
introduced by these variations.)

The RSA patent has been licensed for use in a number of different systems,
since it was patented.

Since the original paper was published in 1978, I assume that the patent was
awarded at approximately that time, which means that in approximately three
years RSA will become public domain.  When that happens, anyone will be free
to use the algorithm.

A particular *program* that implements RSA, on the other hand, will remain
protected by copyright.  Others will have to write their own programs from
scratch--unless they get a license to use/modify that particular program.

They will not be impeded in writing their program--they just won't be able
to copy another program.


Now, we can still argue over whether or not we like patents, in general, and
what they should be applied to, but I don't accept that patents are
necessarily so stifling as you make them out to be.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"