NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/6788

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-04 | 5.3 KB

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6788 misc.int-property:1390 alt.suit.att-bsdi:595 comp.unix.bsd:8470
Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!decwrl!concert!uvaarpa!murdoch!fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU!gsh7w
From: [e-mail] (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:05:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: murdoch.1992Nov5.160500.18105
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 112

Scott Mcgregor writes:
#Why indeed? And if we don't know that they hurt (and I don't) why
#oppose them?

I think handing out monopolies on the basis of "we don't know that
they hurt" is very bad public policy.

Unless the usefulness of the monopoly is clear, it should not be
granted.

You concede that the usefulness of software patents is not clear.

#>"I'm not claiming a patent on the concept of breathing, just on the
#>USE of breathing."
#
#But there is a great deal of difference as has been discussed here.
#Thinking about something, talking about it, improving it, mental
#performance of it would be prohibited by a patent on the "concept".

I find this to be a strawman arguement. I have *NEVER* heard anyone
claim that patends cover what you can think about. If this, what I
consider a strawman arguement, is what you consider the difference
between patenting a concept and patenting the use of a concept, I'll
continue to use the simpler phrase, and you can do the translation
yourself.

#Perhaps that is for the best, if Hennessy doesn't see the difference
#between thinking about a thing and doing a thing, and considers it
#more plain english to treat them as equivalent rather than distinct.

Since I never claimed that there was not a difference between thinking
about a think and doing a thing.

This is the third time you have put words in my mouth. If it happens a
forth time I will end this discussion.

(I'm close to ending it since the same points are starting to be
repeated.)

#But the unimplemented concept of RSA is totally
#useless to them, because most of the general public will never
#implement a program for themselves.

Since the patent is the only thing that is keeping it unimplemented,
perhaps we should get rid of the patent, nes pas?

#And to the general public there is a big difference between a mere
#invention and a marketted product that they can buy. It is not
#surprising to me that readers who don't share this appreciation for
#the distinction would oppose software patents--what mystifies me is
#how they could approve of non-software patents.

You also need to be aware that many of us who oppose software
patents understand the first sentence. As to the second sentence, the
purpose of patents is to give incentive for publishing ideas (rather
than keeping them secret) and much of the research in software is done
by universities, and people at universities already publish. (Helps
with little things like tenure.)

#If I could patent a concept I could sue you for infringement for
#thinking about it (i.e."making" the concept) or talking about it
#("distributing" it.) or selling a book that describes it.  None of
#these are prohibited.

I don't agree with any of these statements, which simply proves we use
the same words to mean different things.

What I mean when I say that RSA has patented the concept of public key
cryptology is that if anyone implements a pkc system REGARDLESS OF
WHICH ALGORITHMS THEY USE (Such as TRW did), then RSA would claim
infringement.

RSA (in my mind) built a new stove, then claimed a patent on cooking.
Even if I invent a totally new stove, I can't cook with it.

Thus, "cooking" is patented, as I use the terms.

#The RSA patent doesn't prevent ALL applications of multiplications of
#large primes, only the application to cryptology, a narrower domain.

Ah, but I can't even use some "non-multiplication of primes" to do the
cryptology becasuse the cryptology is patented. Or as you would say,
the sue of the cryptology is patented.

#Failure to appreciate this difference seems to lead some people to
#worry that an algorithm in a patented program would infringe if
#independently used to accomplish some completely different purpose in a
#completely different program.  It wouldn't, but I think confusion over
#the difference between the idea and concept, and a single use, is what
#leads some people to this erroneous conclusion

Well, the LZW patent was in terms of data storage on disks. But IBM
claims that *ALL* uses of this compression is covered, but they won't
charge royalties unless you build a gizmo with it.

So, even though you *claim* that algorithms are only covered in small
areas, large companies are saying the exact opposite.

Why should I beleive your intrepretation instead of IBM's?

#Licensing is even more common than people who don't do it realize.

I realize how often it happens. You claimed that they *ONLY*
liscenced, which means they would NEVER produce.

Which is a crazy claim.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      [e-mail]
 UUCP:        ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w