From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor)
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: 1 Oct 92 23:09:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct1.134749.5671@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes:

>It's not hard to imagine that within our lifetimes, the brain will be
>readable as a medium also.  (Some progress has already been made in
>this area.) Do you mean that when that happens, there won't be any 
>"mental processes" at all?
No merely that it will be possible to describe a physical process that
takes place in the brain.  One still will only be able to speculate on
what happens except at an observable behavior level.  I think that
Dennet & Hofstatder make a good case that brain and mind are
different, even though it may be possible to simulate brain processes
in silicon.  But if you are a Behavioralist, then the difference
doesn't matter since you don't care about mental states.

>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.  This is the same sense in which no one cares if I
can mentally cure rubber in my head but the care very much if I can do
it efficiently in the real world. If someone can change bits on a disk
using LZW and only their mind (using psycho-kinesis) that too would be
very interesting.

-- 

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
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6228 misc.int-property:1128 alt.suit.att-bsdi:446 comp.unix.bsd:6817