🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <26208@adm.brl.mil> abc@adm.brl.mil (Brinton Cooper) writes:
>In article <4893@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@jacobi.ucsd.edu writes:
>[stuff deleted]
>>If software is patentable, then why isn't mathematics?  There is no
>>real distinction.
>
>Isn't it true that mathematics is (was) thought to have always existed,
>much as the physical universe described by physics has "always existed"
>(or evolved)?  I believe that mathematics was forbidden from  patenting
>because it was thought that mathematics is "discovered" and not
>invented and that it was created by a Higher Being.

Whether new mathematics is "discovered" or "invented/created" is a
long running debate that trips over into the philosophic and/or
religious viewpoints of the debaters.  

From what I understand, "to patent or not to patent" is determined
primarily upon whether the item in question is an idea or a unique
implementation of an idea.  I believe the inability to patent
mathematics is based upon the principle that the field of mathematics
is a discipline of ideas.  (If others know differently, I would
appreciate learning the precise legal decisions involved.)  

However, if one were to use a particular mathematical idea to produce
something of note, and that particular application this mathematical
idea was deemed to be unique, perhaps even very clever, then this
unique use of the mathematical idea may be subject to a patent.  This
does not restrict the use of the mathematical idea by others, it
simply restricts the use of a particular implementation of the
mathematical idea.

Many would argue that most of what is done in software design and
implementation consists of ideas and very commonplace implementations
of those ideas, which are found repeated over and over again is
software.  Others would argue that software often consists of unique
implementations of ideas, and such implementations should be subject
to patent.  It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in
court. 

Keep in mind, that the courts have determined time and time again that
the Patent Office has made errors in judgment when it issued various
patents in the past.  The granting of a patent is offen overturned in
court.  Given the frequency with which this has been done in the past,
until a patent is backed up by a court decision, it cannot be trusted
as a valid patent.

One example of a patent that did not hold up is one issued to the
famous Weed Eater.  Many companies copied the concept and sold similar
devices, even though the Weed Eater company held a patent.  The court
held that the use of a cord spinning at high speed to cut grass and
weeds is an idea and that Weed Eater's implementation of that idea is
too simple and commonplace to be subject to patent protection.
Remember, the implementation of an idea MUST also be considered
"unique" to be afforded patent protection.

So, it seems to me that the question the court will try to answer is:
"Is backing store simply an idea not subject to a patent?  Or is
backing store a unique implementation of an idea deserving patent
protection?  If the latter, how would one describe the generic idea
that backing store uniquely implements?  And how convincing an
argument can be presented to convince the court that the
implementation is, indeed, unique?
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Gallagher        kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org OR ...!uunet!digi!kgallagh
DSC Communications Corporation   Addr: MS 152, 1000 Coit Rd, Plano, TX 75075
----------------------------------------------------------------------------