🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MERNST.90Aug11165925@emu.lcs.mit.edu> mernst@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Michael Ernst) writes:

Joe Buck (jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu) says:
>  That's because algorithms, for the most part,
>  are discovered rather than invented.  This distinction was established
>  in law by the founders of the country (you can't patent mathematical
>  relationships or laws of nature)

Bruce Karsh (karsh@sgi.com) says:
>  This is clearly nonsense.  Patents weren't even invented in the US.

>I don't understand what Bruce is trying to say here; his second sentence is
>a non sequitur.

Joe Buck said that the distinction was was established by the founders of our
country.  Patent law dates from well before the founding of our country and
the founders of our country didn't create the distinction between algorithms
and inventions.

The part that says that you can't patent a mathematical relationship or a
natural law is true, but somewhat misleading.  You certainly can patent an
invention which depends fundamentally on a natural law or a mathematical
relationship.  For instance, you can't patent addition of integers, but
you can patent a novel circuit for adding integers together.

The interesting thing about this is that if someone were to patent a new
style adder, it'd probably be translated into VHDL code for use in a VLSI
chip.  At this point, it's strictly an algorithm coded in a programming
language.

So does anyone think that patents on digital logic circuits should likewise
be disallowed?

			Bruce Karsh
			karsh@sgi.com