🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Aug1.223920.21363@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com writes:
>
>I think that escher is saying that it may not be easy to anticipate what an
>algorithm can be used for.

What does being able to anticipate possible end-uses of an algorithm
have to do with patenting them?  Algorithms manipulate data in very
precisely specified and predictable ways; that manipulation is the
function of the algorithm.  A sorting algorithm orders data.  Whether
the data is personnel records or pixels, the algorithm is performing
the same function. 

>No, a sort may not recalculate a spreadsheet,
>but a topological sort might be used to find the best order of
>recalculation.

Some algorithms use other algorithms.  That doesn't make them any less
well-defined, and it doesn't change the basic function.  BTW, what's a
topological sort?

>Sometimes the most creative step
>in the development of a program is the application of an existing, well-
>known algorithm to an entirely new use.

Such creativity is what copyrights are intended to protect.  Patents
are supposed to protect design innovations, not the creative
application of known technology.

>This is an especially vexing
>aspect of the threat of patents misapplied to algorithms:  They could
>unexpectedly stifle work in areas unrelated to the original use of the
>algorithm.

I still don't see what the `original use' has to do with patents.
Perhaps an example of what you're talking about would help.

I have no objection to algorithm patents in theory, but our
legal/patent system is not set up properly to make them practical.
For one thing, the term of algorithm patents would have to be closer
to 5 years than 17.  The patent office would need to get smart too,
since they have negligable software background.

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