
At 09:08 AM 4/14/96 -0800, Lee Tien wrote:
In reply to the message excerpted below:
I believe Jim's not looked back far enough. My recollection from law school is that the law was friendly to math patents in the period before the Supreme Court weighed in. There were some PTO denials, which courts reversed (I think the Court of Claims heard these back then). So I think the trend was toward patenting processes even if mathematical until Gottschalk v. Benson. It's a conceptually messy area because "processes" have long been patentable (like the Morse telegraphy/Bell telephony patents) but the Supreme Court saw the Benson application as violating the doctrine against patenting "laws of nature."
Lee
I seem to recall reading that one of the breakthrough "algorithm" patents was from the 1970's, in which a rubber-curing/molding process's cure time was determined by a mathematical formula based on heat, pressure, mold shape, and a number of other variables. I don't really object to this, because some engineering tasks are complicated and mathematical formulas are required to solve them optimally. However, I don't see the basis for patenting what is just about pure mathematics, and RSA is very close to pure math. The fact that there is a practical use for it is almost a secondary consideration. If factoring numbers were easy, RSA wouldn't have been useful, even though the math would still have "existed," at least theoretically. Clearly, it is not the math itself which is useful; it is a specific characteristic of that math, its difficult reversibility. A person looking for a mathematical algorithm to apply to public-key cryptography probably doesn't try to do new math; what he tries to do is to find old math that has this characteristic. Had mathematics always been patentable, the patent on that math would have expired at least decades, and possibly centuries ago. In any case, I don't think it's unrealistic to suspect that the government was playing games with the patent system due to RSA. After all, let's get back to basics: What, exactly, does a patent do? A patent on RSA doesn't prevent the EVIL SOVIETS from using it. It doesn't "allow" the USG to use it; if there was no patent on it they'd be able to use it for free. The only thing a patent on RSA might arguably do is to keep other people, mostly Americans, from using it. That's right, the patent system was actuallly denying the public this system.

On Sun, 14 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:
. . . However, I don't see the basis for patenting what is just about pure mathematics, and RSA is very close to pure math. The fact that there is a practical use for it is almost a secondary consideration. ... Had mathematics always been patentable, the patent on that math would have expired at least decades, and possibly centuries ago.
In any case, I don't think it's unrealistic to suspect that the government was playing games with the patent system due to RSA. That's right, the patent system was actuallly denying the public this system.
This falls into the same category as software patents. According to an ATT patent attorney, the ALGORITHM is not patented, however building a virtual machine to implement it is covered by the patent. This is the same as chemical processes which have been patented historically, you use public domain chemicals, and normal laboratory procedures in appropriate sequence, apply an algorithm to create something new. The patent covers use of this process (algorithm). As such it is not new. Crypto is a very TINY part of the picture. General software patents (where the big money is) had been submitted for years, and these financial considerations apparently drove the picture. Not that this makes much sense, but then the whole concept of intellectual property law is littered with absurdities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Holovacs <holovacs@ios.com> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PGP Key fingerprint = AC 29 C8 7A E4 2D 07 27 AE CA 99 4A F6 59 87 90
participants (2)
-
Jay Holovacs
-
jim bell