🚀 go-pugleaf

Changing the world just became easier.  Below is 
a latex document of Dan Bernstein's composition
to the US Patent office.  Please see his original 
posting for more information.  Remember to change
at least the name, address, signature, and first
paragraph.

This document and Dan's original article are also
available for anonymous ftp from jupiter.ee.pitt.edu
(130.49.15.1) in /pub/patent (once I receive the RFC,
I'll make that available for ftp as well).

*******************************************************************
       Alan R. Martello        Electrical Engineering Dept.
        al@ee.pitt.edu           University of Pittsburgh
*******************************************************************

----------  CUT HERE  --------------
\documentstyle[12pt]{letter}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}          %left margin at 1.5 in from edge
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0in}         %left margin at 1.5 in from edge
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}               % 1 inch right margin
\setlength{\parindent}{0in}               % 0 inch paragraph indent
\setlength{\parskip}{0.1in}               % add 1/4 inch between para.
%
% 1 inch top and bottom margins
\setlength{\textheight}{8.5in}
\setlength{\headsep}{.5in}
\setlength{\headheight}{.25in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{0in}
\pagestyle{empty}
%
\address{Joe Schmoe\\
123 Main Street\\
Anytown, USA  12345}

\signature{Joe Schmoe}

\begin{document}

\begin{letter}{E.R. Kazenske\\
Executive Assistant to the Commissioner\\
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office\\
Box 15, Washington, DC 20231}

\opening{Dear Mr. Kazenske:}

\setlength{\parskip}{0.2in}               % add 1/4 inch between para.

My name is Joe Shmoe. I have been a professional programmer for
seven years; I currently work for Margorp Corporation.
I write in response to 56 FR 22702-02,
titled ``Request for Comments for the Advisory Commission on Patent
Law Reform,'' dated May 16, 1991.

Question I(a) of 56 FR 22702-02 asks: ``What problems, if any,
exist in the current framework of laws which protect computer-related
inventions?'' As detailed in ``Against Software Patents,'' by the League
for Programming Freedom, many patents have been granted for obvious
techniques and combinations of techniques which any competent computer
programmer could invent in the course of a day's work. Many patents have
also been granted for processes which should be unpatentable but which
are disguised so that patent examiners do not realize what they are
approving.

For example, claim 1 of U.S. Patent 4,558,302 describes a method
equivalent to the methods claimed by U.S. Patent 4,814,746. (Any expert
on data compression can verify this equivalence.) Furthermore, 4,814,746
was applied for before 4,558,302. Therefore 4,558,302 claimed prior art
and should not have been approved. But it was approved. Since the patent
examiners were obviously not competent to see the equivalence of these
two computer-related patents, it is reasonable to assume that the patent
examiners also are not competent to detect the fact that a patent covers
a mathematical algorithm, or to understand the obviousness of the
techniques covered by such patents, or to know when a patent is covered
by prior art.

Question I(d) asks: ``What evidence exists, if any, that patents
issued on new and useful computer program-related inventions do or do
not provide an incentive to conduct research and development on new
products, and that such patents do or do not promote the development of
new technology?'' As stated by D. E. Knuth in The Art of Computer
Programming, volume 3, page 318, one of the first algorithms to be
patented as an algorithm was in 1968. There were only a few software
patents granted before 1980. However, the software industry was already
a productive field for research and development by 1968 and an extremely
profitable field by 1980. Software patents did not drive this industry
in any way. Now that there are many software patents, they are hurting
rather than helping the industry. A company named Public Key Partners,
for example, has been sending patent notices to anyone who would like to
publish work in the mathematical field of public-key cryptography.
Recently the company prevented distribution of a program which did
nothing more than gather a set of numbers, compute certain other numbers
by certain mathematical formulas, and display the result.

Question I(b) asks: ``What changes, if any, should be made in the
domestic and international systems for protection of computer-related
inventions?'' I support Daniel J. Bernstein's ``Statement of Proposed
Mental-Process Patent Regulations,'' attached. I believe that removing
all patents upon mental processes, such as 4,558,302, will help restore
the freedom and productivity that my profession once had, without in any
way affecting the traditional benefits of patents upon physical products
and processes. Thank you for considering my comments.
\closing{Sincerely,}
\end{letter}


   Statement of Proposed Mental-Process Patent Regulations

   Daniel J. Bernstein

   July 5, 1991

\setlength{\parskip}{0.2in}               % add 1/4 inch between para.

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

\begin{quote}
	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.
\vskip .25in

	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.
\vskip .25in

	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.
\end{quote}
\end{document}