Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 00:55:42 -0400 From: Brian T.Schellenberger <bts@babbleon.org> To: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@neomedia.it>, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@neomedia.it>, "P. U. (Uli) Kruppa" <root@pukruppa.de>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Use of the UNIX Trademark Message-ID: <01101100554200.00685@i8k.babbleon.org> In-Reply-To: <1002663600.3bc36eb096ee5@webmail.neomedia.it> References: <000601c15084$87edd360$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <1002663600.3bc36eb096ee5@webmail.neomedia.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Visit http://www.programming-freedeom.org . . . On Tuesday 09 October 2001 17:40, Salvo Bartolotta wrote: > > I seem to undertstand that the law applying to software is different in > Europe, ie copyright-oriented (Europe) rather than patent-oriented (USA). Or, "sensible (Europe) rather than insane (USA)" would be another way to put this. > The patent question perplexes me, probably because I have a very limited > understanding/knowledge of its issues and niceties. No, it's probably because you *do* understand the issues. > <exercise type="wild imagination"> > > For one moment, suppose that the principle of algorithm patentability came > true to the fullest extent. [the choice of "come true" is NOT coincidental > ;-)] > > The next day, I would wake up and patent the algorithm solving 2nd degree > algebraic equations. > > > I chose a trivial example just for the sake of simplicity. You could > substitute algorithms/theorems on [differential or algebraic] equations; > numerical analysis/calculus algorithms (eg Runge-Kutta methods); etc. etc. > etc. By the way, the discussion is not purely theoretical: think eg of CRC > polynomials... In *theory*, the patent office would reject this because it's not original. The application of patent law is not supposed to rescind the existing patent-law requirement for originality. In practice, they are totally clueless. The whole idea of patenting algorithms is absurd. It's long been summarized that "you can't patent an idea", but now you can (in the US). > Next, I would write a program in BEEEE_sick solving 2nd degree algebraic > equations. A month later, you would chance to write another such program, > without any prior knowledge of my patent(s) or even my program(s). > > Finally, I would sue you for two patent infringements: the algorithm and > the program. Rich lawsuits. :-)) > > Alternatively, you would have to pay [$$$]$$$ each and every time you made > use of the aforementioned algorithm. Hmm, that would sound like quick and > steady progress for the whole field of studies and/or applications. :-) Yep. > I may be missing something, er, quite a lot of things, but such scenarios > make little to no sense (to me) -- however > subtle/clever/precise/interesting/rigorous/etc may be, computationally > speaking, the chosen definition of algorithm complexity and/or ahem > "originality". > > Incidentally -- it's just my impression, mind you -- I would say this kind > of law, in the long run, might be very harmful to software industry itself. Certainly. > Then again, I may be completely wrong about the whole matter. I wish . . . > -- Salvo See http://www.programming-freedom.org for more info. -- Brian T. Schellenberger . . . . . . . bts@wnt.sas.com (work) Brian, the man from Babble-On . . . . bts@babbleon.org (personal) http://www.babbleon.org -------> Free Dmitry Sklyarov! (let him go home) <----------- http://www.eff.org http://www.programming-freedom.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01101100554200.00685>