Article View: comp.patents
Article #55FFT Patent? (was Re: The future of comp.patents)
From: a_rubin
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:10
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:10
21 lines
1390 bytes
1390 bytes
In <4656@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> sps@email.sp.unisys.com (Steven P. Skabrat) writes: >Did I stumble into alt.politics by accident here? [In my opinion,] Well, the law says that algorithms, per se, cannot be patented (or something like that). The PTO seems to be approving algorithms patents. This can rationally lead to discussion of whether the PTO SHOULD be approving algorithm patents. Whatever happened the the recent FFT patent, anyway. Published prior art dates back at least to the late 19th century. -- Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea 216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer. Ich bin ein Virus. Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature. [mod- Was this the Bracewell Transform???]
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4671@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!"a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com"@BIIVAX.DP.BECKMAN.COMReferences:
<4656@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!"a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com"@BIIVAX.DP.BECKMAN.COM From: "a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com"@BIIVAX.DP.BECKMAN.COM Newsgroups: comp.patents Subject: FFT Patent? (was Re: The future of comp.patents) Message-ID: <4671@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> Date: 14 Apr 92 07:10:30 GMT References: <4656@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> Sender: news@cluster.cs.su.oz.au Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc. Lines: 18 Approved: patents@cs.su.oz.au Nntp-Posting-Host: dn66.dse.beckman.com