🚀 go-pugleaf

So the July 15 deadline for responses to the USPTO request for comments
has passed, and you haven't sent your letter. Or you sent a letter
supporting my proposed mental process regulations, but then you saw the
LPF's response and wanted to say you support that too. Or you liked what
the LPF said and wanted to support it, but noticed that they didn't
actually propose new regulations to solve the problems.

You can still act to change patent law. Read on.

First of all, if you've written a letter or would write one if the
deadline hadn't passed, write it and send it anyway! July 15 wasn't
actually a deadline. All the USPTO said was ``To ensure full
consideration... should be received by July 15, 1991.'' That doesn't
mean the issue was closed on July 15. It was a promise that the
Committee wouldn't consider responses until sometime *after* July 15.
They might get together this week or next week or maybe even next month,
depending on all sorts of schedules. So if you write your letter now and
send it this week, there's an excellent chance that they'll still
consider what you have to say.

Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with writing two letters. The second
one can say something like ``This is a continuation of my response of
July 11. I would like to add that I agree with the letter by the League
for Programming Freedom.''

Even if you don't want to write a letter, you can call the USPTO. This
is a good idea even if you have written a letter! You can get to the
Commissioner's staff at 703-557-3071. You have to say the following
(don't call until you've read this through and unless you agree with all
of it!):

     Your name (they'll prompt for this if you don't say)

     Your phone number (ditto)

     Your professional or academic affiliation (ditto)

     ``I'm calling about 56 FR 22702-02, the request for comments on
     patent law reform.'' Try not to laugh when you hear the groan from
     the other end. If necessary, insist that you want to leave a
     message for Mr. Kazenske. He's the Executive Assistant to the
     Commissioner.

     If you support the LPF response: ``I agree with the letter written
     by the League for Programming Freedom.'' If at this point you're
     asked whether your call is part of a massive phone campaign, answer
     truthfully that you're stating your beliefs and would like your
     voice to be heard.

     If you support my proposed mental-process regulations: ``I support
     Daniel J. Bernstein's mental-process regulations.'' They're quoted
     at the end of this article and were discussed in my letter. If the
     person you're talking to asks what those regulations are, read them
     over the phone. This takes about a minute and a half.

     At this point you should give examples of patents which you don't
     think should exist, horror stories of patents damaging the software
     industry, and any additional changes which you'd like to see in the
     patent law. One useful point to emphasize is that the Japanese are
     using software patents against us, since such patents generally do
     not apply in Japan. If possible, get some acknowledgment that your
     statements are being written down.

     Finally, if you want, ask how many calls like yours have been
     received at the USPTO over the past few days. If the number is
     sufficiently impressive, post it to gnu.misc.discuss. Say a polite
     thank-you---remember that phone comments were not solicited---and
     hang up.

The call should last at most two or three minutes. That's a small
investment of your time and money, but think of what will happen if a
few hundred programmers call. The USPTO phone will be ringing every five
minutes. Actually, there are tens of thousands of programmers and other
professionals reading these groups. Imagine what effect we can have!
Even if only a few dozen people call they'll be impressed, and I'm sure
there are many more out there who are willing to take a few minutes to
make their lives a little easier.

Responding to the USPTO request for comments is by no means the last
word in changing the patent law. Here are several useful courses of
action:

1. Talk to Congress. It's Congress, not the Patent Office, which makes
the real decisions about patent law. I'll be posting some advice about
concrete steps you can take; watch gnu.misc.discuss next week. In the
meantime, you should make sure to find out the names of your senators
and representatives.

2. Ask your boss about company or university policy on software patents.
There's a good chance that your boss isn't aware of the issues or
doesn't realize how serious the problem is. If you haven't been watching
the patent discussions on the net religiously, you may find the files in
jupiter.ee.pitt.edu:pub/patent useful for catching up on the issues and
seeing how poorly the USPTO handles software and algorithm patents.
Another good source of ammunition is prep.ai.mit.edu:pub/lpf. Sending
issues like this up the line is a wonderful way to achieve results.

3. If you're at a university or big corporation which regularly applies
for software patents, send a perfectly normal-looking but absolutely
outrageous patent proposal to whoever normally handles employee
inventions. I, for instance, recently invented a process for slowly
synthesizing new instances of certain biological organisms, given two
sufficiently similar models for the organism. With this pre-patent
publication I'm afraid I've given up foreign patent rights, but I'm sure
domestic profits will be more than adequate. :-) Seriously, you should
take a formula or algorithm or software method which you come across in
your work, write it with as many big words, as much convoluted logic,
and as little resemblance to the actual technique as possible, say the
magic words ``use upon a computer'', and send it along. If possible,
generate an internal series of tech reports describing what you're
doing. If you get a patent, congratulations! Tell the story to the
world.

---Dan

Statement of Proposed Mental-Process Patent Regulations
Daniel J. Bernstein
July 5, 1991

I support the adoption of the following definitions and resolutions
into statute or regulation.

	A mental process per se is not statutory subject matter for a
	patent. The term ``mental process'' includes, but is not limited
	to, any process which may be carried out within a person's mind.
	The term ``mental process'' includes, but is not limited to, any
	method by which a set of numbers or symbols is computed from a
	different set of numbers or symbols. The term ``mental process''
	includes, but is not limited to, a mathematical algorithm. The
	term ``mental process'' includes, but is not limited to, a
	mental process performed with the aid of a computer. The term
	``mental process'' includes, but is not limited to, any
	combination of mental processes.

	A mental process applied in a non-essential manner to physical
	elements is not statutory subject matter for a patent. A mental
	process limited to a particular technological environment is not
	statutory subject matter for a patent. A mental process combined
	with data-gathering steps which merely determine values for
	variables used in the process is not statutory subject matter
	for a patent. The combination of a mental process with a process
	or product which is not statutory subject matter for a patent
	is not statutory subject matter for a patent. A product defined
	by its result or function, when that result or function is also
	the result or function of a mental process, is not statutory
	subject matter for a patent.

	Use of a mental process per se cannot infringe upon a patent.
	Use of a mental process with the aid of a computer or partially
	or entirely carried out upon a computer cannot infringe upon a
	patent.