home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Big Boy's World Famous BBSing Primer 95.D
/
bigpr95d.zip
/
KNUTH.1
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1995-02-25
|
7KB
|
202 lines
1995 the year the U.S. software industry started to decline?
Software patents are killing the software industry in America!
Unisys claims patent on LZW compression math algorithm, sues
CompuServe for using it in the Gif digital picture format
MIT claims patent on RSA cryptographic math algorithm, causes
famous Pretty Good Privacy freeware program trouble.
Where will it end?
LETTER TO THE PATENT OFFICE
FROM PROFESSOR DONALD KNUTH
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Box 4
Patent and Trademark Office
Washington, DC 20231
Dear Commissioner:
Along with many other computer scientists, I would like
to ask you to reconsider the current policy of giving
patents for computational processes. I find a considerable
anxiety throughout the community of practicing
computer scientists that decisions by the patent courts
and the Patent and Trademark Office are making life
much more difficult for programmers.
In the period 1945-1980, it was generally believed that
patent law did not pertain to software. However, it now
appears that some people have received patents for
algorithms of practical important -- e.g., Lempel-Ziv
compression and RSA public key encryption -- and are
now legally preventing other programmers from using
these algorithms.
This is a serious change from the previous policy under
which the computer revolution became possible, and I
fear this change will be harmful for society. It certainly
would have had a profoundly negative effect on my own
work: For example, I developed software called TeX
that is now used to produce more than 90% of all books
and journals in mathematics and physics and to produce
hundreds of thousands of technical reports in all
scientific disciplines. If software patents had been
commonplace in 1980, I would not have been able to
create such a system, nor would I probably have ever
thought of doing it, nor can I imagine anyone else doing
so.
I am told that the courts are trying to make a distinction
between mathematical algorithms and non-mathematical
algorithms. To a computer scientist, this makes no
sense, because every algorithm is as mathematical as
anything could be. An algorithm is an abstract concept
unrelated to physical laws of the universe.
Nor is it possible to distinguish between "numerical" and
"nonnumerical" algorithms, as if numbers were somehow
different from other kinds of precise information. All
data are numbers, and all numbers are data. Mathemat-
ticians work much more with symbolic entities than with
numbers.
Therefore the idea of passing laws that say some
kinds of algorithms belong to mathematics and some
do not strikes me as absurd as the 19th century attempts
of the Indiana legislature to pass a law that the
ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is exactly
3, not approximately 3.1416. It's like the medieval
church ruling that the sun revolves about the earth.
Man-made laws can be significantly helpful but not
when they contradict fundamental truths.
Congress wisely decided long ago that mathematical
things cannot be patented. Surely nobody could apply
mathematics if it were necessary to pay a license fee
whenever the theorem of Pythagoras is employed.
The basic algorithmic ideas that people are now rushing
to patent are so fundamental, the result threatens to
be like what would happen if we allowed authors to
have patents on individual words and concepts. Novelists
or journalists would be unable to write stories
unless their publishers had permission from the owners
of the words. Algorithms are exactly as basic to
software as words are to writers, because they are the
fundamental building blocks needed to make interesting
products. What would happen if individual lawyers could
patent their methods of defense, or if Supreme Court
justices could patent their precedents?
I realize that the patent courts try their best to serve
society when they formulate patent law. The Patent
Office has fulfilled this mission admirably with respect to
aspects of technology that involve concrete laws of physics
rather than abstract laws of thought. I myself have a few
patents on hardware devices. But I strongly believe that the
recent trend to patenting algorithms is of benefit only to a
very small number of attorneys and inventors, while it is
seriously harmful to the vast majority of people who want to
do useful things with computers.
When I think of the computer programs I require daily to
get my own work done, I cannot help but relize that none
of them would exist today if software patents had been
prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s. Changing the rules
now will have the effect of freezing progress at essentially
its current level. If present trends continue, the only
recourse available to the majority of America's brilliant
software developers will be to give up software or to
emigrate. The U.S.A. will soon lose its dominant posi-
tion.
Please do what you can to reverse this alarming trend.
There are far better ways to protect the intellectual
property rights of software developers than to take away
their right to use fundamental building blocks.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Knuth
Professor Emeritus
*******************************
"Professor Donald Knuth of Stanford University is the
world's leading authority on algorithms. His magnum
opus, the three-volume work titled "The Art of Computer
Programming," is the most important reference work on
algorithms. Knuth also developed the mathematical text
formatted TeX and the idea of "literate programming".
Supporting evidence of Knuth's position are the following
distinctions:
National Medal of Science
Member, National Academy of Sciences
Member, National Academy of Engineering
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Turing Award, Association for Computing Machinery
18 Honorary Doctorates
Through these honors, Knuth is perhaps the most distin-
guished living exponent of the field of computer science.
He is also a member of the League for Programming Freedom."
--- from PROGRAMMING FREEDOM, newsletter of the League for
Programming Freedom, February 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------
TO JOIN THE LPF:
1-year memberships are $42 for professionals, $21 for non-
professionals, $10.50 for students, $100 for institutional
members. Larger contributions gratefully accepted, but are
not tax deductible!
Name:
Address (circle one: Home Work):
Telephone (circle one: Home Work):
Company you work for:
Position:
Your email address:
Would you like to help with LPF Activities?
( ) letter/email writing
( ) conferences
( ) other
Is there anything about you which would enable your
endorsement of LPF to impress the public? For
example, if you are or have been a professor or an
executive, or have written software that has a good
reputation, please tell us.
League for Programming Freedom
One Kendall Square #43
PO Box #9171
Cambridge, MA 02139
.end