🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <13540@ulysses.att.com>, smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
> > It would also be interesting to see
> > whether such a patent, which no doubt covers an implementation in a modem,
> > would stand up in court in the case where only the underlying algorithm is
> > used, and that implemented purely as a piece of software (aot software used
> > as part of a mechanism)
> 
> If the patent was properly drafted, I suspect that it would stand up
> in court.

Looks like I have to post a followup contradicting myself...

I suggest that anyone interested in the question of the patentability
of algorithms read the ``Legally Speaking'' column in the August 1990
CACM.  It reviews assorted court decisions on the subject, and seems to
indicate that the Patent Office is granting algorithmic patents in ways
that Supreme Court decisions would not allow.  A lot seems to ride on
just how the patent is drafted -- if you attempt to patent the
algorithm, you'll be rejected; if you attempt to patent a mechanism
embodying the algorithm, you'll likely succeed.  But even that may not
be consistent with Court rulings.

I won't try to summarize the article more than I have above; it's
moderately dense, since it appears to be a condensation of a longer
paper being published by a legal journal.