🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <849@uhccux.UUCP>, cs313s19@uhccux.UUCP (Cs313s19) writes:
> In a paper distributed
> by MIT and in Communications of the ACM, the authors described RSA without
> any mention of a patent or pending patent.
> 
> Now, I know zero about patent law, but shouldn't this place the algorithm
> in the public domain?  Suppose, eg, that I hadn't read in BYTE or in this
> newsgroup that it's patented, and built some large system based on RSA.
> How can they claim I should have known it's theirs?

Repeat after me:

     Algorithms aren't patentable; HARDWARE IMPLEMENTATIONS are.

     Ignorance of a prior patent is no excuse.

Specific text (like a paper) or code is copyrightable, but that's
not what we're discussing here.  Algorithms are either known or
not known, much like laws of science.  Algorithms are neither
patentable nor copyrightable.  The only way to retain control of
an algorithm is to keep it a secret; and even then you lose if
someone discovers it independently.

Patent rights are enforceable as long as the patent is valid.
This means that if you want to market something, you're required
to perform a patent search first.  A patent search is an
examination of all the existing patents related to your design.
The onus is on you to look for existing patents, rather than on
the patent holders to tell you in advance that they have a patent
(which is obviously unworkable).  Failure to perform a patent
search is foolhardiness of the highest order, and you'd DESERVE to
get sued.
-- 
{hplabs,amdahl,ames}!bnrmtv!perkins         --Henry Perkins

It is better never to have been born.  But who among us has such luck?
One in a million, perhaps.