🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MERNST.90Aug11170157@emu.lcs.mit.edu> mernst@theory.lcs.mit.edu writes:
>
>> The dumb sorts would surely all be unrestricted.
>
>Why?  They were new once.

Because they're obvious.

>Using XOR to write a cursor on the screen is such an obvious method
>that surely it would be unrestricted.  Right?

Right.  So we obviously have a screwed-up software patent situation.
Nobody here is arguing for the status quo.

>Apologists for algorithm patents commonly argue that that protection is
>needed for complicated algorithms (where "complicated" varies by
>apologist), while the simple ones will be somehow specially dealt with.
>How?

The same way they're handled for hardware patents.  Would there have
been a dilemma at the Patent Office if someone tried to patent the
wheel?  

>Where will you draw the line between those algorithms which are laws
>of nature and those which you claim are not?

What's the difference between a hardware design and a software design
that makes one patentable and the other not?  A sorting algorithm is
no more a `law of nature' than is a safety pin.

>If you, a computer
>professional, cannot quickly and easily make this distinction, how can you
>hope that a court of law or the patent office, both of which have amply
>demonstrated their inability to make these judgments, will do so?

They can't, today.  They're not equipped for it, and the
hardware-oriented patent laws need adjusting for the software arena.
The solution is to suspend the granting and enforcing of software
patents until the problems can be ironed out, if ever.  But the
existence of these logistical problems doesn't invalidate the patent
concept as applied to software.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)		These are my opinions.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems
Workstation Support