🚀 go-pugleaf

> >You can't patent an application or purpose of a mathematical theorem
> >(AFAIK). I still do not see how software is distinct from mathematical
> >theorems or algorithms.
>
> Yes you can. The public key encryption patent was exactly that. It told
> about using modular exponentiation in order to encrypt. Now, the modular
> exponentiation itself of course could not be patented (both becasue it
> is math and because it had been invented many years ago), but the use of
> modular exponentiation with a modulus which is the product of two primes
> was patented (RSA). You could still use modular exponentiation to
> produce say a random number generator, but not to encrypt. It is the
> purpose that allows the technique to be patented. The purpose is not
> patented-- the technique to achieve that purpose is.

Actually, if you read the patent closely, it is not even using modular
exponentiation to encrypt that is patented, directly. It actually
patents a system of nodes of an unspecified nature connected by an
unspecified communication system using modular exponenatiation to
implement public key cryptography in certain described ways. Of
course, this happens to cover any practical use of the algorithm, but
technically they patented something vaguely resembling a physical
system.

And the actual reason this patent stands is most likely because they
described it as a system for cryptography, which the Supreme Court
would disingenously rule to be a "non-mathematical algorithm" under
current doctrine. The RSA example best demonstrates just how specious
this distinction is.

 - Maciej Stachowiak

-- 
guile -c '(define c call-with-current-continuation)(define(f s)(lambda(o)(let
((n(c(lambda(x)(o x)x))))(let p((n n)(l(string->list s)))(cond((not (null? l)
)(display(car l))(p(c n)(cdr l))))))))((f"Js nte ul akr")(f"utAohrGieHce\n"))'