🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9012111808.AA20219@life.ai.mit.edu> ark@europa.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:

   That is, the legal ability to patent an algorithm stems from the

Just for the record: according to a patent lawyer I have spoken with,
by the way, you cannot, technically speaking, patent an algorithm as
such.  An algorithm is considered to be like a mathematical law; it is
a fact of the universe, not something that can be patented.  He also
said categorically that you cannot, technically speaking, patent
software as such, and what people are calling "software patents" are
not actually patents on the software.  They are patents on a method of
achieving some goal, and they would protect equally well a hardware or
a software implementation of that method.

This probably doesn't have any important impact on the substance of
the conversation, but I thought people might be interested.

Also, it is already the case that you cannot patent something that is
in widespread use before the patent exists.  The legal jargon phrase
here is "prior art".  To defend a patent on, say, include files, you'd
have to show that include files were not part of the state of the art
prior to the patent.  (I can't remember whether we're talking about
the date of application or the date the patent issues, but you get the
idea.)

Shortening the lifespan of patents is one of the possible reforms that
has been brought up many times.  I think one complexity is that the
appropriate period varies by industry.  For example, the time clock
for a new medical drug starts at the time that they begin certain
types of clinical trial; the drug company is unlikely to get FDA
approval until quite some years after that.  So if patents were, say,
five years in duration, there would be no effective patent protection
for drug companies.  Software, of course, is quite different.

Honestly, this discussion does not belong on comp.lang.c++.
It needs to be moved to a more appropriate place.

Having said that, in violation of my own request....


In article <1990Dec12.185220.9629@odi.com> dlw@odi.com writes:

> Also, it is already the case that you cannot patent something that is
> in widespread use before the patent exists.  The legal jargon phrase
> here is "prior art".  To defend a patent on, say, include files, you'd
> have to show that include files were not part of the state of the art
> prior to the patent.


The problem which endangers the whole software industry is that the U.S.
Patent Office specifically requires patent lawyers to be trained at the
undergraduate level in the technical discipline that they plan to apply
their law training to.  For example, lawyers dealing with aviation patents
must have a baccalaureate-level degree in aerospace engineering.
[Or something like that.  I may not have that at 100% accuracy.]

Further, the Patent Office SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS Computer Science degrees
from being considered valid for this purpose!  The closest allowable area
is EE with a specialization in computers.

Hopefully, most of these EE/Lawyers are well enough versed in the software
side of things to avoid and prevent prior art from being patented.
Unfortunately, due to the pressures and complexities of law and business,
this seems not to be the case.  Prior art IS being patented; it is possible,
but VERY expensive, to prove the invalidity of these patents in court.


-- 
John Baldwin  | srchtec!johnb@gatech.edu
              | johnb%srchtec.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu