Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Count EFF In

48 views
Skip to first unread message

David Farber

unread,
Jan 6, 1995, 6:19:49 PM1/6/95
to

Lots of folks have been working on that issue .. patent research.
There is the Software Patent foundation etc. In that case
too many ...

As to fighting patents and making it damn uncomfortable
for companies to continue to pursue enforcement of
such patents, the payoffs have been very very good lately


David Farber; Moore Prof. of Telecom, U of Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6389
Member of the Boards of EFF and ISOC. Join EFF! send mail to e...@eff.org

Seth Finkelstein

unread,
Jan 7, 1995, 3:09:16 AM1/7/95
to
In article <3elag2$l...@newshost.lanl.gov> gre...@lanl.gov (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>In article <3eknhi$3...@infonaut.com> jf...@infonaut.com (Jim Freeman) writes:
>
>>One could argue that the
>>root cause of this debate is that some people feel that patenting software
>>flies in the face of the express purpose of the patent system, and that
>>the hullabaloo about this is simply a symptom (not the root cause).
>
>I suppose some people might actually feel thisway . I'd be interested in
>hearing what their basis for feeling so is.

There is much material explaining this position in the archives
of the League for Programming Freedom. Just ftp to prep.ai.mit.edu,
cd to /pub/lpf

>I have serious doubts that it would be anything I'd consider terribly logical.
From the README:

The file techrev.patent is an article by Brian Kahin on the dangers of
software patents, published in Technology Review (March 1990).

>After all, the patent
>system--as with other forms of intellectual property--has the express purpose
>of encouraging creation and innovation. Just what is it about patenting
>algorithms that "flies in the face" of that purpose anymoreso than
>patenting other technical creations?

The articles and other material explain this in great detail.
Having to search - and work around, or license, the tremendous number of
concepts that go into many programs can be a severe burden.

>As far as I have seen to this point, the most reasonable complaints
>regarding algorithm patents are pragmatic ones--primarily involving the
>traditional inexperience of the patent examiners when it comes to algorithms,
>and the lack of a comprehensive catalog of prior art. Such pragmatic
>concerns, of course, say nothing to support a contention that protection
>for algorithms is inimical to the patent system.

Those complaints are the most common, because that's the first
line of trouble. A second line - licensing issues, applied to actual
existing programs - is what we are seeing now. Before, it was mostly a
theoretical, what-could-happen, objection. Now we are seeing cases in
progress, and more negative effects are becoming evident. Just imagine if
Unisys decided to prosecute everyone with a GIF viewer ...

--
Seth Finkelstein se...@mit.edu
Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself.
(and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else).

Jefferson Ogata

unread,
Jan 7, 1995, 9:02:37 AM1/7/95
to
In article <3eli7c$h...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> se...@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) writes:
> There is much material explaining this position in the archives
>of the League for Programming Freedom. Just ftp to prep.ai.mit.edu,
>cd to /pub/lpf
> From the README:
>
> The file techrev.patent is an article by Brian Kahin on the dangers of
> software patents, published in Technology Review (March 1990).

This thread may be drifting off some of the newsgroups it is going
out on...feel free to edit the Newsgroups: line if you follow up.

I was just reading Brian Kahin's techrev.paper on prep.ai.mit.edu
and found it very interesting. The following thoughts occurred to
me that I didn't see him address, and I was curious what people
thought about them. These are just my opinions based primarily on
the information in Kahin's paper (hope I'm not overstepping any
bounds ;^), as I know very little about patent law.

It seems to me that the main problem with software patents is the
17-year lifespan. 17 years in the development of physical processes
is a reasonable time for growth of an industry. But scaled to the
high rate of development in the software industry, it is more like
centuries. Perhaps a shorter lifespan (e.g. 1.5 years from the time
of granting) would allow inventors to capitalize on moderate or
radical innovation in software design, while not hamstringing the
industry.

The industry that stands to benefit the most in the near term from
software patents is the legal profession. Having to hire lawyers
for patent searches as a part of software development is going to
provide a continuous and high level of income to legal firms. In
fact, the streamlining of the patent search process could result
in the development of a whole new industry. ;^)

--
Jefferson Ogata og...@netcom.com
"Animals without backbones hid from each other or fell down. Clamasaurs and
oysterettes appeared as appetizers. Then came the sponges, which sucked up
about ten percent of all life." - Firesign Theatre

J. S. Greenfield

unread,
Jan 7, 1995, 12:55:08 PM1/7/95
to
In article <3eli7c$h...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> se...@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) writes:

>>After all, the patent
>>system--as with other forms of intellectual property--has the express purpose
>>of encouraging creation and innovation. Just what is it about patenting
>>algorithms that "flies in the face" of that purpose anymoreso than
>>patenting other technical creations?
>
> The articles and other material explain this in great detail.
>Having to search - and work around, or license, the tremendous number of
>concepts that go into many programs can be a severe burden.

I still can't see how this "flies in the face" of the purpose of the patent
system. Inventors of non-algorithmic processes must also search the prior
art for potential infringements.

How is this philosophically different int he case of algorithms, to the extent
that patent protection for algorithms "flies in the face" of the purpose of
the patent system?

It seems to me that algorithm patents serve the same purpose as non-lagorithm
patents--to encourage the creation and *sharing* of technical knowledge.
Remember that, in the absence of patent protection, a creator who wishes
to protect his invention is left only with trade secret protection.

Note--I'm not making an argument for or against any kind of patent here. I'm
merely arguing that there is no substantive philosophical difference between
patents for algorithms and non-lagorithmic processes--and certainly no
such difference that supports a claim that patent protection for algorithms
"flies in the face" of the purpose of the patent system.

It still seems apparent to me that the real problem with patent system
vis-a-vis algorithms is the lack of a comprehensive catalog of prior art
and inexperience by the examiners, leading to the granting of patents for
algorithms that aren't sufficiently original to warrant such protection.


>>As far as I have seen to this point, the most reasonable complaints
>>regarding algorithm patents are pragmatic ones--primarily involving the
>>traditional inexperience of the patent examiners when it comes to algorithms,
>>and the lack of a comprehensive catalog of prior art. Such pragmatic
>>concerns, of course, say nothing to support a contention that protection
>>for algorithms is inimical to the patent system.
>
> Those complaints are the most common, because that's the first
>line of trouble. A second line - licensing issues, applied to actual
>existing programs - is what we are seeing now. Before, it was mostly a
>theoretical, what-could-happen, objection. Now we are seeing cases in
>progress, and more negative effects are becoming evident. Just imagine if
>Unisys decided to prosecute everyone with a GIF viewer ...

I don't see how this is a "second line." The complaints about the LZW patent
generally take one of two forms: 1) the algorithm was known long before the
patent was applied for, or 2) the algorithm isn't sufficiently inoovative
to warrant patent protection. I can't factually comment on either claim.
However, if either were correct, the granting of the patent would be a problem
falling into the class of practical problems I described.

As far as Unisys' current action goes, its a different issue entirely, and
there are serious doubts in my mind as to whether Unisys could prevail in
any action. The problem with the current action is not at all specific
to patents. The problem is that Unisys (apparently) did little to nothing
to enforce its patent (at least as used in GIF algorithms) for a good eight
years or so. That has caused many people to rely on Unisys' non-enforcement.
It seems highly unlikely that Unisys can, years later, successfully enjoin
such uses, or collect damages. (That is, prevail in court. We all know the
realities/intimidation of litigation.)


--
J. S. Greenfield gre...@thelair.zynet.com
(So what were you expecting?
A Gorilla?!) "What's the difference between an orange?"

J. S. Greenfield

unread,
Jan 7, 1995, 1:03:02 PM1/7/95
to
In article <ogataD2...@netcom.com> og...@netcom.com (Jefferson Ogata) writes:

>It seems to me that the main problem with software patents is the
>17-year lifespan. 17 years in the development of physical processes
>is a reasonable time for growth of an industry. But scaled to the
>high rate of development in the software industry, it is more like
>centuries. Perhaps a shorter lifespan (e.g. 1.5 years from the time
>of granting) would allow inventors to capitalize on moderate or
>radical innovation in software design, while not hamstringing the
>industry.

First of all, I doubt that we can reasonably generalize *all* non-algorithmic
processes as being suitable for a 17-year life span. We certainly can't do
so for algorithms. Take the well-known RSA patent. How long did it take
for that patent to become at all profitable?

In any case, a 1.5 year lifespan is most assuredly useless. For one thing, it
takes years just to get a patent. If the true useful life span of a patent
is only 1.5 years, that lifespan will be over before patent protection is
granted. During that time, *anybody* will be able to use the algorithm
royalty-free.

The result would be that inventors would simply maintain new algorithms as
trade secrets. It would be the only way to protect the value of the
invention. Now *that* would fly in the face of the purpose of the patent
system, since the whole point of that system is to encourage the *sharing*
of knowledge, in order to advance technology...

J. S. Greenfield

unread,
Jan 7, 1995, 12:57:22 AM1/7/95
to
In article <3eknhi$3...@infonaut.com> jf...@infonaut.com (Jim Freeman) writes:

>One could argue that the
>root cause of this debate is that some people feel that patenting software
>flies in the face of the express purpose of the patent system, and that
>the hullabaloo about this is simply a symptom (not the root cause).

I suppose some people might actually feel thisway . I'd be interested in

hearing what their basis for feeling so is. I have serious doubts that
it would be anything I'd consider terribly logical. After all, the patent


system--as with other forms of intellectual property--has the express purpose
of encouraging creation and innovation. Just what is it about patenting
algorithms that "flies in the face" of that purpose anymoreso than
patenting other technical creations?

As far as I have seen to this point, the most reasonable complaints


regarding algorithm patents are pragmatic ones--primarily involving the
traditional inexperience of the patent examiners when it comes to algorithms,
and the lack of a comprehensive catalog of prior art. Such pragmatic
concerns, of course, say nothing to support a contention that protection
for algorithms is inimical to the patent system.

Shari Steele

unread,
Jan 6, 1995, 3:18:19 PM1/6/95
to
Jim Freeman writes:

> The EFF/LPF could assist this process with some legal savvy
> in suggesting which versions (or portions thereof) of the
> extant GIF standards can be used without encumbrance.
> This would be the "Legal Issues Group" (LIG). They could
> also be a site for collecting some funds for reimbursing
> project participants for pizza, Chinese food, long-distance
> phone calls, and other tangible costs incurred up through Jan 10.
> Let me know who winds up doing this, and I'll cough up $50.
> Content and tools providers with vested interest and a lot to
> lose might want to be a good bit more generous than that.

EFF would be happy to find and work with competent pro bono legal counsel
to help with this (since none of us are patent attorneys per se and we want
to make sure we do this right). Not only are we willing to collect funds
for reimbursing project participants for the necessary pizza and jolt
expenses -- we will match all funds we collect, up to $1000, and throw in
EFF memberships to each person donating more than $100. Any funds that are
not used for this purpose will be saved in an account that is earmarked for
fighting future net threats only.

Go for it!
Shari
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shari Steele, Director of Legal Services sst...@eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation 202/861-7700 (voice)
1667 K Street, N.W., Suite 801 202/861-1258 (fax)
Washington, DC 20006-1605 202/861-1224 (BBS)


Keith Stone

unread,
Jan 6, 1995, 4:58:17 PM1/6/95
to
In article <1995010620...@eff.org>, sst...@eff.org (Shari Steele)
wrote:

> EFF would be happy to find and work with competent pro bono legal counsel
> to help with this (since none of us are patent attorneys per se and we want
> to make sure we do this right). Not only are we willing to collect funds
> for reimbursing project participants for the necessary pizza and jolt
> expenses -- we will match all funds we collect, up to $1000, and throw in
> EFF memberships to each person donating more than $100. Any funds that are
> not used for this purpose will be saved in an account that is earmarked for
> fighting future net threats only.

Actually, if EFF wanted to do something REALLY contructive, they would
help work out a method to speed research for patent research. The root
cause of this debate is that Compuserve inadvertantly released into the
public domain a file format that required the use of a patented algorithm
do create.

Fighting an existing patent is a waste of time and money, since they've
already established a precedent for licencing the technology.

--
--------- Keith Stone | Voice: (910) 777-0511
|\\\ ///| Crewstone Consulting ltd. | FAX: (910) 777-1191
|/// \\\| 1001 South Marshall Suite 118 | "Beware of geeks bearing
--------- Winston-Salem, NC 27101 | GIFs"

Jim Freeman

unread,
Jan 6, 1995, 7:33:54 PM1/6/95
to
In article <kstone-0601...@kstone.crewstone.com>,
Keith Stone <kst...@crewstone.com> wrote:
...

>Actually, if EFF wanted to do something REALLY contructive, they would
>help work out a method to speed research for patent research. The root
>cause of this debate is that Compuserve inadvertantly released into the
>public domain a file format that required the use of a patented algorithm
>do create.

Since that's not what they choose to do, it is probable the EFF does not
agree that this would be REALLY contructive. One could argue that the


root cause of this debate is that some people feel that patenting software
flies in the face of the express purpose of the patent system, and that
the hullabaloo about this is simply a symptom (not the root cause).

>Fighting an existing patent is a waste of time and money, since they've


>already established a precedent for licencing the technology.

No need to fight the patent - just make it irrelevant, work around it
without infringing - innovate instead of litigate.

...jfree

Daniel F Boyd

unread,
Jan 7, 1995, 8:31:54 PM1/7/95
to
In article <3eml0m$f...@newshost.lanl.gov>,

J. S. Greenfield <gre...@lanl.gov> wrote:
> The result would be that inventors would simply maintain new algorithms as
> trade secrets.

That would be a preferred result, as independent reinvention is
commonplace for software.

Lance Purple

unread,
Jan 7, 1995, 8:57:48 PM1/7/95
to
>J. S. Greenfield <gre...@lanl.gov> wrote:
>> The result would be that inventors would simply maintain new algorithms as
>> trade secrets.

Daniel F Boyd <bo...@cs.Buffalo.EDU> wrote:
>That would be a preferred result, as independent reinvention is
>commonplace for software.

How about the following: in order to get a patent, inventors must prove
they have maintained a trade secret for 5 years or so, without anyone
else independently discovering the invention.

That way, you wouldn't have so many patents on obvious inventions,
but you would get the original intended benefit of patents (the
invention isn't lost forever if the inventor dies, and the inventor
has incentive to put it into the public domain after recovering
the initial R+D costs).

L. Purple (lpu...@netcom.com)

J. S. Greenfield

unread,
Jan 7, 1995, 11:58:28 PM1/7/95
to
In article <D22C9...@acsu.buffalo.edu> bo...@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Daniel F Boyd) writes:

>> The result would be that inventors would simply maintain new algorithms as
>> trade secrets.
>
>That would be a preferred result, as independent reinvention is
>commonplace for software.

That's not a preferred result. Patents are not supposed to be granted for
inventions that are fairly obvious to one skilled in the art. If an algorithm
is likely to be independently reinvented on a frequent basis, it ought not
receive a patent.

So the real issue there is the skill of the examiner in being able to
distinguish between the mundane and the truly innovative.

Quite clearly, there are some algorithms that are very *unlikely* to be
independently reinvented on a frequent basis. I certainly wouldn't expect
very many programmers to independently reinvent the Cooley-Tukey FFT, or the
RSA cryptosystem, for example.


In any case, the problem of independent reinvention is by no means peculiar
to algorithms. It exists for *all* forms of invention.

I have heard arguments that independent reinvention is more likely for
algorithms than for other forms of technology, merely because of the large
number of programmers. That may well be true, but even if it is, that
merely suggests to me that we might need a higher standard for what
constitutes a patentable algorithm. (Certainly, it ought to be higher than
the one currently in effect, due to fairly inexperienced examiners...)

David L. Elliott

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 12:45:27 AM1/8/95
to
In article <3enrdk$9...@newshost.lanl.gov>,

J. S. Greenfield <gre...@lanl.gov> wrote:
[stuff omitted]

>
>
>Quite clearly, there are some algorithms that are very *unlikely* to be
>independently reinvented on a frequent basis. I certainly wouldn't expect
>very many programmers to independently reinvent the Cooley-Tukey FFT, or the
>RSA cryptosystem, for example.
>
>
>In any case, the problem of independent reinvention is by no means peculiar
>to algorithms. It exists for *all* forms of invention.
>
>I have heard arguments that independent reinvention is more likely for
>algorithms than for other forms of technology, merely because of the large
>number of programmers. That may well be true, but even if it is, that
>merely suggests to me that we might need a higher standard for what
>constitutes a patentable algorithm. (Certainly, it ought to be higher than
>the one currently in effect, due to fairly inexperienced examiners...)
>
>
>--
>J. S. Greenfield gre...@thelair.zynet.com

A small correction... the FFT was discovered independently four times; once
as a way of designing synthetic-aperture antennas, the other times as
algorithms. Cooley and Tukey deserve great credit for the version we now have.

David

--
David L. Elliott dell...@src.umd.edu
Institute for Systems Research/ A.V. Williams Building
University of Maryland/ College Park, MD 20742

merlin

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 1:07:58 AM1/8/95
to
>It seems to me that the main problem with software patents is the
>17-year lifespan. 17 years in the development of physical processes
>is a reasonable time for growth of an industry. But scaled to the
>high rate of development in the software industry, it is more like
>centuries.

This isn't a unique problem for the software industry. Biotechnology
technology also develops at an extremely rapid rate. Without a doubt
there are many other rapidly developing industries experiencing these
problems.

Perhaps more important than the inconvenience of individual patents on
software development -- there is a serious problem when huge numbers of
patents are issued (as in biotechnology) which actually inhibit progress
and development of innovation in the field. This is contrary to stated
intent in the US Constitution that patents only be granted which advance
the state of the art by bring private innovation into public limelight.

Tim Smith

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 2:44:24 AM1/8/95
to
Seth Finkelstein <se...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
>>of encouraging creation and innovation. Just what is it about patenting
>>algorithms that "flies in the face" of that purpose anymoreso than
>>patenting other technical creations?
>
> The articles and other material explain this in great detail.
>Having to search - and work around, or license, the tremendous number of
>concepts that go into many programs can be a severe burden.

And how is this different from any other field in which things are patented?

--Tim Smith

Seth Finkelstein

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 3:37:36 AM1/8/95
to

In a line, there are big problems in scale and scope. In this
whole discussion, I keep getting the feeling that some people are asking
"What's the difference between a pack of a tigers and a housecat?
After all, we have well-defined procedures for the keeping of "cats",
and so we live with "felines" all the time. In fact, that old lady down
the block has a dozens housecats as pets, and the only injuries have
been a few scratchs. So why should it be any less safe to have a pack of
tigers roaming around the neighborhood? Isn't what people are concerned
about really just "nasty dispositions"? Of course there are some cats
which have gone feral, the problem is then not the system of feline
pets, but the underfunding and quality of animal control officers. What
is this illogical argument about having a pet tiger pack flying in the
face of the "pet system"? ".

Bob Cousins

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 11:33:56 AM1/8/95
to
kst...@crewstone.com (Keith Stone) wrote:
>In article <1995010620...@eff.org>, sst...@eff.org (Shari Steele)
>wrote:
>
>> EFF would be happy to find and work with competent pro bono legal counsel
>> to help with this (since none of us are patent attorneys per se and we want
>> to make sure we do this right). Not only are we willing to collect funds
>> for reimbursing project participants for the necessary pizza and jolt
>> expenses -- we will match all funds we collect, up to $1000, and throw in
>> EFF memberships to each person donating more than $100. Any funds that are
>> not used for this purpose will be saved in an account that is earmarked for
>> fighting future net threats only.
>
>Actually, if EFF wanted to do something REALLY contructive, they would
>help work out a method to speed research for patent research. The root
>cause of this debate is that Compuserve inadvertantly released into the
>public domain a file format that required the use of a patented algorithm
>do create.

They wouldn't be called the EFF if they followed goals counter to their aim.
If you want to do something constructive Keith, why don't *you* set up
an organisation for patent research, and see how much support you get -
from people like Unisys, IBM, patent lawyers...

Regards,

--
Bob Cousins, Sirius Cybernetics Ltd.
Say No to GIF tax - say Yes to GEF!

Keith Stone

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 11:50:52 AM1/8/95
to
In article <3eknhi$3...@infonaut.com>, jf...@infonaut.com (Jim Freeman) wrote:
>
> No need to fight the patent - just make it irrelevant, work around it
> without infringing - innovate instead of litigate.

Agreed. If developers feel the LZW license is more trouble than it's
worth, an alternative will result. If folks find that the cost of LZW is
less than the hassle of creating an alternative, that's fine too. In
either case, the issue is resolved without boycotts, mail-bombing, and
lawsuits.

My real concern is that patent research is a pain in the butt, and more of
these flaps are going to crop up. Since patents are a way of life, it
seems more productive (to me at least) to solve the issue up front than to
wait for an eruption and get out a fleet of lawyers.

Keith Stone

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 12:08:38 PM1/8/95
to
In article <3emkhs$f...@newshost.lanl.gov>, gre...@lanl.gov (J. S.
Greenfield) wrote:

> As far as Unisys' current action goes, its a different issue entirely, and
> there are serious doubts in my mind as to whether Unisys could prevail in
> any action. The problem with the current action is not at all specific
> to patents. The problem is that Unisys (apparently) did little to nothing
> to enforce its patent (at least as used in GIF algorithms) for a good eight
> years or so. That has caused many people to rely on Unisys' non-enforcement.
> It seems highly unlikely that Unisys can, years later, successfully enjoin
> such uses, or collect damages. (That is, prevail in court. We all know the
> realities/intimidation of litigation.)

According to Unisys, they have over 100 existing LZW licenses in effect.
To me, that shows they are enforcing their patent. I know they were
licensing it at least five years ago in software, since I taked with then
at that time about using it. We did not license it becasue the product
didn't get off the ground, but went far enough to know that both one time
fees and usage based royalties were available.

Unisys wouldn't have found out about GIF until AFTER if became popular.
When it first came out, both GIF and Compuserve weren't even on their
radar screen. Even in graphics circles, I bet only developers knew of LZW
being in the GIF format. Most others didn't know or care.

Jurgen Botz

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 2:39:03 PM1/8/95
to
In article <3enrdk$9...@newshost.lanl.gov>,

J. S. Greenfield <gre...@lanl.gov> wrote:
>That's not a preferred result. Patents are not supposed to be granted for
>inventions that are fairly obvious to one skilled in the art. If an algorithm
>is likely to be independently reinvented on a frequent basis, it ought not
>receive a patent.

Right. The problem is, they *are* being granted for algorithms that
are "fairly obvious". Constantly. Because patent examiners have no
clue about what's obvious and what's not. And because there are *lots*
of smart people out there working on software and to whom you could go
and say "invent me an algorithm that's a bit like LZ, but better" and
by tomorrow they'll have LZW. But if you look through a bunch of software
patents you'll find that things like LZW and RSA are the exceptions in
that they're really relatively clever... most software patents are issued
on stuff a smart high-school student would come up with immediately if
you asked her to solve the same problem.

The hard thing about writing software isn't algorithms. It's
intelligent design, code structuring, thorough testing, etc. 99% of
software packages out there use only algorithms that are "fairly
obvious" and which were "invented" by the programmers as they were
coding without even thinking about whether this might be something
someone else has already "invented".

And as I said elsewhere recently, a lot of these patented "algorithms"
aren't even what a real programmer would call an "algorithm" but more
like a protocol or a functional spec (i.e. Hayes "escape guard time",
Compton's "multimedia", the network-byte order thing, the list is
endless).

This situation *CANNOT* be corrected easily... you'd have to make some
of the best computer scientists patent examiners before you'd even have
a chance at issuing *reasonable* patents on algorithms, and that just
isn't going to happen.

J. S. Greenfield

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 3:02:37 PM1/8/95
to
In article <3enu5n$m...@newra.src.umd.edu> dell...@Glue.umd.edu (David L. Elliott) writes:

>>Quite clearly, there are some algorithms that are very *unlikely* to be
>>independently reinvented on a frequent basis. I certainly wouldn't expect
>>very many programmers to independently reinvent the Cooley-Tukey FFT, or the
>>RSA cryptosystem, for example.

>A small correction... the FFT was discovered independently four times; once


>as a way of designing synthetic-aperture antennas, the other times as
>algorithms. Cooley and Tukey deserve great credit for the version we now have.

I'm not sure what you mean by "correction." I don't think that four
independent re-discoveries contradict my suggestion that we wouldn't expect
such re-discoveries to be "frequent."


--
J. S. Greenfield gre...@thelair.zynet.com

J. S. Greenfield

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 3:19:48 PM1/8/95
to
In article <3eo88g$e...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> se...@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) writes:

>>> The articles and other material explain this in great detail.
>>>Having to search - and work around, or license, the tremendous number of
>>>concepts that go into many programs can be a severe burden.
>>
>>And how is this different from any other field in which things are patented?

> In a line, there are big problems in scale and scope. In this
>whole discussion, I keep getting the feeling that some people are asking
>"What's the difference between a pack of a tigers and a housecat?
>After all, we have well-defined procedures for the keeping of "cats",
>and so we live with "felines" all the time. In fact, that old lady down
>the block has a dozens housecats as pets, and the only injuries have
>been a few scratchs. So why should it be any less safe to have a pack of
>tigers roaming around the neighborhood? Isn't what people are concerned
>about really just "nasty dispositions"? Of course there are some cats
>which have gone feral, the problem is then not the system of feline
>pets, but the underfunding and quality of animal control officers. What
>is this illogical argument about having a pet tiger pack flying in the
>face of the "pet system"? ".

I'm unconvinced that your analogy is particularly meaningful. It's fine
to draw analogies, but when the main issue is--as you say--scale and scope,
analogies are relatively useless, since these analogies are drawn precisely
to *exaggerate* the scale and scope of the problem.

And let's remember, the original claim to which I object (and to which I still
do object) was the claim that algorithm patents flew int he face of the
*purpose* of the patent system.

We have yet to see anybody present a credible argument as to how patenting
algorithms is, at a philosophical level, inimical to the patent system's
primary purpose of encouraging innovation and the *sharing* of the technical
knowledge derived from such.

In any case, for those of you who maintain that the patent system is generally
reasonable, but that algorithm patents are inherently bad, please reconcile
the following apparent inconsistency:

In such a patent system, one can patent a circuit that implements (in hardware)
an innovative algorithm. However, the same algorithm is ineligible for
patent protection, if implemented in software.

Just what justification is there for having such an arbitrary distinction
between hardware and software implementations?


In the course of this discussion, I've come to a tentative hypothesis that
explains the fairly widespread support for this arbitrary distinction. It's
quite simple. Lots of people (particularly those on the net) have easy access
to computers--either to program themselves, or to use (free or cheap) software
from others. Consequently, those people tend to feel far more restricted
by the idea of an algorithm being protected by patent, than by hardware
patents. Most of them aren't about to go out and build their own hardware.

I suspect that if everybody had easy access to build circuits, and less
access to developing software, we'd be seeing arguments about how circuit
patents are evil, terrible, hideous things...


--
J. S. Greenfield gre...@thelair.zynet.com
(So what were you expecting?

A Gorilla?!) "What's the difference between an orange?"

J. S. Greenfield

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 3:22:04 PM1/8/95
to
In article <D23I1...@demon.co.uk> b...@lintilla.demon.co.uk (Bob Cousins) writes:

>>Actually, if EFF wanted to do something REALLY contructive, they would
>>help work out a method to speed research for patent research. The root
>>cause of this debate is that Compuserve inadvertantly released into the
>>public domain a file format that required the use of a patented algorithm
>>do create.

>They wouldn't be called the EFF if they followed goals counter to their aim.
>If you want to do something constructive Keith, why don't *you* set up
>an organisation for patent research, and see how much support you get -
>from people like Unisys, IBM, patent lawyers...

This past year, didn't IBM offer to provide the PTO with a catalog of
algorithms, to be used for prior art searches by examiners? Companies like
IBM are *extremely* concerned about patents being granted for algorithms
that they have been using for years, and the potentially legal problems
that would arise from such.

J. S. Greenfield

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 3:25:40 PM1/8/95
to

>According to Unisys, they have over 100 existing LZW licenses in effect.
>To me, that shows they are enforcing their patent. I know they were
>licensing it at least five years ago in software, since I taked with then
>at that time about using it. We did not license it becasue the product
>didn't get off the ground, but went far enough to know that both one time
>fees and usage based royalties were available.

My comments were explicitly directed at enforcement against GIF algorithms,
which as far as I can tell from what I have seen so far, was essentially
non-existant. It is irrelevant whether Unisys enforced the patent
against others.


>Unisys wouldn't have found out about GIF until AFTER if became popular.
>When it first came out, both GIF and Compuserve weren't even on their
>radar screen. Even in graphics circles, I bet only developers knew of LZW
>being in the GIF format. Most others didn't know or care.

It's inconceivable to me that Unisys did not know--or even suspect the
possibility--that GIF compression was using LZW. It's been a public standard
for at least 8 years, and has seen widespread use.

I seriously doubt that Unisys could make a successful argument against
estoppel on the basis that it "didn't know" an infringement was occuring.

J. S. Greenfield

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 3:41:29 PM1/8/95
to
In article <3epf0n$c...@mudraker.mtholyoke.edu> jb...@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:

>>That's not a preferred result. Patents are not supposed to be granted for
>>inventions that are fairly obvious to one skilled in the art. If an algorithm
>>is likely to be independently reinvented on a frequent basis, it ought not
>>receive a patent.
>
>Right. The problem is, they *are* being granted for algorithms that
>are "fairly obvious". Constantly. Because patent examiners have no
>clue about what's obvious and what's not. And because there are *lots*
>of smart people out there working on software and to whom you could go
>and say "invent me an algorithm that's a bit like LZ, but better" and
>by tomorrow they'll have LZW. But if you look through a bunch of software
>patents you'll find that things like LZW and RSA are the exceptions in
>that they're really relatively clever... most software patents are issued
>on stuff a smart high-school student would come up with immediately if
>you asked her to solve the same problem.
>
>The hard thing about writing software isn't algorithms. It's
>intelligent design, code structuring, thorough testing, etc. 99% of
>software packages out there use only algorithms that are "fairly
>obvious" and which were "invented" by the programmers as they were
>coding without even thinking about whether this might be something
>someone else has already "invented".

I think a lot of algorithms people--including myself--would disagree with
you. Many algorithms are not trivial to develop, as you seem to suggest.
And history would seem to contradict you, also. How many researchers are
know for an algorithm they developed? How many researchers are known for
software engineering techniques? You will almost certainly find many, many
more of the former than of the latter...

(And that's not to disparage software engineering. I currently work
primarily in that area, and I did my dissertation work in that area.)


>This situation *CANNOT* be corrected easily... you'd have to make some
>of the best computer scientists patent examiners before you'd even have
>a chance at issuing *reasonable* patents on algorithms, and that just
>isn't going to happen.

You contradict yourself. First, you say that algorithms that are patented--
even the really good ones--could be developed overnight by "lots of smart
people," most even by high school students. Then you claim that the patent
examiner problem can *never* be solved without making the very *best*
computer scientists examiners.

Which is it? Are these algorithms so trivial that lots of smart people
could invent them overnight, or are the algorithms so complex that only
the very best computer scientists could serve as competent examiners?

It's inconceivable to me that *both* could be true.

In fact, I don't even believe that *either* is true. I believe that mere
mortals can be experienced enough to recognize algorithms that they, and most
others, would not trivially develop. I believe that it is unfair to judge
the performance of "mortal" examiners who are appropriately *trained*, on
the basis of the performance of examiners who are *not* trained in the
field of computer science.

(Remember, it was not until last year that the PTO decided to, experimentally,
hire some examiners whose backgrounds were in computer science. They still
have not made computer science a field which qualifies for the patent bar.)

Michael I Bushnell

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 4:02:53 PM1/8/95
to
In article <3eo54o$s...@nntp1.u.washington.edu> t...@u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

Two people can start up a software company with about $30,000 capital
and produce major profit, if they are talented programmers. Their new
system might easily infringe hundreds of patents; they would have to
search patent databases for thousands of possibly patented algorithms.
Each patent search costs between $100 and $1000.

Other industries have *many* fewer "inventions" per product, and
*vastly* higher capital costs. For example, a car might only involve
a few dozen patents. On the other hand, starting a car company
requires tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars in capital.

So software has the combination of vastly more "inventions" per
product and vastly lower intrinsic startup cost. See the difference?

--
Michael I. Bushnell |
+1 617 253 8568 -+-
m...@gnu.ai.mit.edu |
|

denryan@interaccess

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 4:51:48 PM1/8/95
to
J. S. Greenfield (gre...@lanl.gov) wrote:

: I think a lot of algorithms people--including myself--would disagree with


: you. Many algorithms are not trivial to develop, as you seem to suggest.
: And history would seem to contradict you, also. How many researchers are
: know for an algorithm they developed? How many researchers are known for
: software engineering techniques? You will almost certainly find many, many
: more of the former than of the latter..

Hmmmm, yes, the XOR algorithm was certainly a puzzler, stumping the
best minds in computer science for decades before a patented solution
turned up ........


"How many researchers are known for an algorithm (that) they developed?"?

R.E. Tarjan,
and of course the "Fundamental Algorist", Donald Knuth.

My God! To just think about the patents that Knuth could rightfully
claim beggars the imagination! And of how many of the current "software
patents" are constructed upon the freely available work of his!

In fact, I would conjecture that between Knuth and Tarjan, the entirety
of current "software patentry" is moot.

Jurgen Botz

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 8:08:48 PM1/8/95
to
In article <3epilp$b...@newshost.lanl.gov>,

J. S. Greenfield <gre...@lanl.gov> wrote:
>I think a lot of algorithms people--including myself--would disagree with
>you. Many algorithms are not trivial to develop, as you seem to suggest.

Maybe many are not, but many are. In any case what I was saying was that
most *software* only uses trivial algorithms.

>And history would seem to contradict you, also. How many researchers are
>know for an algorithm they developed?

Hmm... yeah, tell me, how many are?

>How many researchers are known for
>software engineering techniques? You will almost certainly find many, many
>more of the former than of the latter...

Software engineering *techniques* are of highly academic interest and
there isn't so much of a sharp boundary between them. But look at
software packages... a lot more people are known for the excellent
software packages (incorporating good SE technique) they wrote than
are known for developing important algorithms. And a lot of that
software incorporates only algorithms that the programmers made up
on the spot, not looked up in the literature.

>You contradict yourself. First, you say that algorithms that are patented--
>even the really good ones--could be developed overnight by "lots of smart
>people," most even by high school students. Then you claim that the patent
>examiner problem can *never* be solved without making the very *best*
>computer scientists examiners.
>
>Which is it? Are these algorithms so trivial that lots of smart people
>could invent them overnight, or are the algorithms so complex that only
>the very best computer scientists could serve as competent examiners?
>
>It's inconceivable to me that *both* could be true.

It seems not only conceivable, but obvious to me that both are true.
Many (or most) algorithms are trivial, but whether this is true for a
particular algorithm is very hard to decide. Since you say that
you're an algorithms person, you should know that coming up with a
good algorithm is often as much a matter of intuition and luck as it
is skill... unlike many other engineering tasks it can't be easily
broken down into steps that can be refined until you have the best
possible outcome. Two equally good computer scientists can look at a
problem and after a night's work one might say "hmmm... this seems
hard... I don't think you can do it in better than O(n^2) time" and
the other looks at it and after fiddeling with ideas for an hour yells
"Heureka! I can do it in linear time!". But until you've made the
breakthrough you just don't know! Is it hard? Isn't it?

So what I'm saying is that a patent examiner might look at a patent
claim and ask themselves "could I develop this given problem X?" But
even if they are decent computer scientists, just because they can't
come up with a solution right then doesn't mean that 100 other people
(including aforementioned high-school students) couldn't solve the
problem overnight! Until you've solved the problem yourself you can't
really know how hard it is. Therefor the patent examiners have to be
so good that they could, on their own, come up with *all* the
solutions for which patent claims are filed. (But then we should just
leave them working in research labs cranking out algorithms to really
hard problems rather than shuffeling patent claims.)

>In fact, I don't even believe that *either* is true. I believe that mere
>mortals can be experienced enough to recognize algorithms that they, and most
>others, would not trivially develop.

And I disagree. There probably are a number of algorithms that any
reasonably well-trained computer sciencist could look at and say, "wow,
this is hard... I don't think many people could come up with this." But
most of the algorithms I've studied do not fall into this category. Until
you've tried to solve it for a while and failed, it's hard to say "this is
hard."

Henry Baker

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 9:39:24 PM1/8/95
to
In article <3epgct$a...@newshost.lanl.gov>, gre...@lanl.gov (J. S.
Greenfield) wrote:

> In article <3enu5n$m...@newra.src.umd.edu> dell...@Glue.umd.edu (David
L. Elliott) writes:
>
> >>Quite clearly, there are some algorithms that are very *unlikely* to be
> >>independently reinvented on a frequent basis. I certainly wouldn't expect
> >>very many programmers to independently reinvent the Cooley-Tukey FFT, or the
> >>RSA cryptosystem, for example.
>
> >A small correction... the FFT was discovered independently four times; once
> >as a way of designing synthetic-aperture antennas, the other times as
> >algorithms. Cooley and Tukey deserve great credit for the version we
now have.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "correction." I don't think that four
> independent re-discoveries contradict my suggestion that we wouldn't expect
> such re-discoveries to be "frequent."

Maybe FFT is pretty obvious after all. Have you ever taken a CS algorithms
course? Nearly the entire course is concerned with converting O(n^2) algorithms
to O(nlogn) algorithms by divide-and-conquer. My guess is that if FFT
hadn't already been published by the time Knuth's Vol. I came out (without
anything about FFT, of course!), a CS undergraduate would have come up with it
within a semester.

Adam J. Richter

unread,
Jan 8, 1995, 11:57:31 PM1/8/95
to
In article <3eml0m$f...@newshost.lanl.gov>,

J. S. Greenfield <gre...@lanl.gov> wrote:
>Take the well-known RSA patent. How long did it take
>for that patent to become at all profitable?

A more important question to ask is "would the public have
RSA if there were no software patent incentives." In many cases, there
isn't enough evidence to answer this question, but, for RSA, it appears
that nobody thought to get a patent until the algorithm had been
published for a while, which is why RSA is not restricted by patents
in Europe the way it is in the US. If patent incentives had played
any sort of motivating role for the development of RSA, MIT would
have not have frittered away their international market. It's not
like MIT was a stranger to technology or foreign patent laws.
So, we know that patent incentives were not necessary for the
development of RSA.

--
Adam J. Richter Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
(408) 261-6630 "Free Software For The Rest of Us."

Matt Austern

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 1:11:50 AM1/9/95
to
In article <3ephd4$a...@newshost.lanl.gov> gre...@lanl.gov (J. S. Greenfield) writes:

> I suspect that if everybody had easy access to build circuits, and less
> access to developing software, we'd be seeing arguments about how circuit
> patents are evil, terrible, hideous things...

Quite possibly true, and if that were the case then I might be
inclined to believe those arguments. If circuit patents did actually
prevent people from doing things that they could otherwise do easily,
if it appeared that the net impact of circuit patents was harmful
rather than helpful, then I probably would oppose them.

My opposition to software patents has nothing to do with first
principles of philosophy; it's because, in the real world that I live
in, software patents seem to be harmful. This might not be satisfying
if you expect that everything should be a matter of clear-cut
distinctions and philosophical truths, but then, the law isn't about
philosophy: it's about arbitrary distinctions and limits made for
pragmatic real-world reasons. If the world were different, then my
opinions about what the law should be would probably be different too.
--

--matt

keith jack

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 2:09:26 AM1/9/95
to
In article <MATT.95J...@physics7.berkeley.edu>,

Matt Austern <ma...@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <3ephd4$a...@newshost.lanl.gov> gre...@lanl.gov (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>
>> I suspect that if everybody had easy access to build circuits, and less
>> access to developing software, we'd be seeing arguments about how circuit
>> patents are evil, terrible, hideous things...
>
>Quite possibly true, and if that were the case then I might be
>inclined to believe those arguments. If circuit patents did actually
>prevent people from doing things that they could otherwise do easily,
>if it appeared that the net impact of circuit patents was harmful
>rather than helpful, then I probably would oppose them.

Coming from the hardware side, I have to deal with those
nasty patents... :) Sure, it prevents me from taking
the easy way out -- I need to find another way to do the
same thing. It is not easy, and sometimes you need to
just license the patent, if possible.

In the "old days" we did patent searches to avoid the
problem. Today, most people just go ahead, and if you
get caught violating a patent, you cut a deal or
redesign/cancel the chip. Reason is there are just too many
patents to cover...

BTW, if it weren't for patents, last company I worked at wouldn't
have been around long -- instead it's now made substantial
contributions to graphics and multimedia. They were agressive in
protecting their patents, and didn't feel like spending millions on
development to just have somebody copy a new idea.

Companies that don't spend the R&D dollars can sell your
ideas for less than you, killing you in the marketplace... :)
And a company will not spend R&D dollars if it can't get a
return on investment.

So, those choice is cheaper products with little advancement
over time (since no R&D is being done), or slightly more
expensive products that do a lot more...

As a side note, just because something is published does
not mean "it is in the public domain". I've routinely
published things shortly after patent filing...doesn't
mean you can use it... :)

Now the problem of software now being fast enough to replace
some hardware is interesting...

Of course, much of the above is IMHO... :)


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Jack kj...@netcom.com Author: Video Demystified
(619) 587-1057 Editor: Digital Video Technology
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/kj/kjack Multimedia Independent Contractor

Henry Baker

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 2:51:41 AM1/9/95
to
In article <3eqfnr$1...@yggdrasil.com>, ad...@yggdrasil.com (Adam J.

Richter) wrote:
> A more important question to ask is "would the public have
> RSA if there were no software patent incentives." In many cases, there
> isn't enough evidence to answer this question, but, for RSA, it appears
> that nobody thought to get a patent until the algorithm had been
> published for a while, which is why RSA is not restricted by patents
> in Europe the way it is in the US. If patent incentives had played
> any sort of motivating role for the development of RSA, MIT would
> have not have frittered away their international market. It's not
> like MIT was a stranger to technology or foreign patent laws.
> So, we know that patent incentives were not necessary for the
> development of RSA.

I attended an MIT Project MAC Christmas party at Ed Fredkin's house in 1973?
(possibly 1974) where a number of people including Fredkin, Moses, etc. were
discussing ways to gain (D)ARPA funding for something as esoteric as number
theory. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Rivest, Shamir and Adleman were
also there in attendence. I believe that Fredkin suggested hooking the problem
up to something involving national security e.g., encryption or something.

I believe that this germ of an idea eventually resulted in the RSA
algorithm.

I don't recall that the topic of patents ever came up.

James Buster

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 3:27:03 AM1/9/95
to
In article <kjackD2...@netcom.com>, keith jack <kj...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <MATT.95J...@physics7.berkeley.edu>,

> BTW, if it weren't for patents, last company I worked at wouldn't
> have been around long -- instead it's now made substantial
> contributions to graphics and multimedia. They were agressive in
> protecting their patents, and didn't feel like spending millions on
> development to just have somebody copy a new idea.

Really? What new ideas were those? Can you really justify the "new and
innovative" label you give them? Note that "substantial contributions"
are not necessarily sufficiently interesting to deserve patent protection.
--
James Buster
bit...@netcom.com

Seth Finkelstein

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 6:49:49 AM1/9/95
to
In article <3ephd4$a...@newshost.lanl.gov> gre...@lanl.gov (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>In article <3eo88g$e...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> se...@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) writes:
>
>>>> The articles and other material explain this in great detail.
>>>>Having to search - and work around, or license, the tremendous number of
>>>>concepts that go into many programs can be a severe burden.
>>>
>>>And how is this different from any other field in which things are patented?
>
>> In a line, there are big problems in scale and scope.

>I'm unconvinced that your analogy is particularly meaningful. It's fine


>to draw analogies, but when the main issue is--as you say--scale and scope,
>analogies are relatively useless, since these analogies are drawn precisely
>to *exaggerate* the scale and scope of the problem.

The point, however, was to illustrate the lines of the argument.
The case against software patents does not necessarily have to be a case
against all patents. That's the reply to "And how is this different
from any other field in which things are patented?". To be valid, that
line of argument needs the conditions of the fields to be comparable.
The counter-argument is that those conditions are very different.

>And let's remember, the original claim to which I object (and to which I still

>do object) was the claim that algorithm patents flew in the face of the


>*purpose* of the patent system.

What's going on is a shift which is subtle at a philosophical
level. The *purpose* of the patent system is, to go back to the original
source "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries". Note promoting progress is the
goal, and the monopoly property interest is not a natural right, but a
trade-off in service of that goal. The argument often shifts, though, to
an *assumption* that the monopoly is required, making it axiomatic that
this "promotes progress". That is, instead of the goal being progress
and the burden of proof in every case being on the idea that granting
monopoly helps this, the presentation is that monopoly helps progress
and the burden of proof is to show why it doesn't. This is the
sensibility that infuses "why different from other fields", to the
often-seen "Why would a company spend money to develop anything if they
couldn't have a monopoly", shading into "sweat of the brow" type
arguments that investment should grant exclusive rights. The trade-off is
vastly different in software than hardware (remember, scale and scope).
So algorithm patents "fly in the face" of the patent system in that (it
is asserted) they in practice *stifle* progress, not promote it.

>We have yet to see anybody present a credible argument as to how patenting
>algorithms is, at a philosophical level, inimical to the patent system's
>primary purpose of encouraging innovation and the *sharing* of the technical
>knowledge derived from such.

The argument is not so much that any information property
interest is intolerable, but that this one is counter-productive. It's a
sucker argument to turn it to a debate into the philosophy of any
restriction on information, because then it gets dragged into
comparisons with other patents on levels in which the abstraction
distracts from important differences. That's the point of my analogy
In a certain philosophical sense, a housecat is no different from a
tiger, but to argue that they are both just "feline pets" (== monopolies
on information) misses a lot, which matters greatly when you are attacked
by one (== need searches or face infringement suit).
The specifics can go on at length, which is why I just gave a pointer
to a whole collection (ftp to prep.ai.mit.edu, cd /pub/lfp). Should I
just post stuff from there?

>In any case, for those of you who maintain that the patent system is generally
>reasonable, but that algorithm patents are inherently bad, please reconcile
>the following apparent inconsistency:

How about for those of us who maintain that algorithm patents
are inherently bad, but do not have the inclination to argue about the
whole system in general? Surely one can argue that a particular law is
bad without arguing the entirety of the justice system.

> In such a patent system, one can patent a circuit that implements (in
> hardware) an innovative algorithm. However, the same algorithm is
> ineligible for patent protection, if implemented in software.
> Just what justification is there for having such an arbitrary distinction
> between hardware and software implementations?

That it will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars to
fabricate the circuit in marketable quantities, but only a few thousand
(or zero) to create a program. That you will never give physical copies
to the circuit to whoever wants one, but you can give everyone in the
world a free copy of the program, if you are so inclined. That people
aren't constantly implementing complicated circuits in tinker toys,
gerbil habitats, and plumbing connections, all of which could require
extensive searches and/or payments of royalties to the patent holder.
And so on.
The distinction between hardware and software is as "arbitrary"
as the distinction between body and mind. Yes, there are ways they are
intertwined. But assuming too much is or should be treated as identical
is a great fount of bad philosophy.

>In the course of this discussion, I've come to a tentative hypothesis that
>explains the fairly widespread support for this arbitrary distinction. It's
>quite simple. Lots of people (particularly those on the net) have easy access

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>to computers--either to program themselves, or to use (free or cheap) software
>from others. Consequently, those people tend to feel far more restricted
>by the idea of an algorithm being protected by patent, than by hardware
>patents. Most of them aren't about to go out and build their own hardware.

Exactly. The trade-offs are vastly different in hardware and
software. From your tone, you seem to thinks this is fatally tainted by
self-interest, and that that invalidates the distinction.

>I suspect that if everybody had easy access to build circuits, and less
>access to developing software, we'd be seeing arguments about how circuit
>patents are evil, terrible, hideous things...

ie. "If hardware had similar trade-offs to software, people
would argue that hardware patents were as bad as they say software
patents are". Absolutely. Right. Sure. Is that a refutation?

Haven't you just argued the key point in the above, albeit with
a very negative characterization? Namely, that hardware and software have
significant differences, and these affect whether or not monopolies are
beneficial in the field. That's what we've been saying all along.

Jefferson Ogata

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 7:06:23 AM1/9/95
to
In article <3eml0m$f...@newshost.lanl.gov> gre...@lanl.gov (J. S. Greenfield) writes:

>In article <ogataD2...@netcom.com> og...@netcom.com (Jefferson Ogata) writes:
>
>>It seems to me that the main problem with software patents is the
>>17-year lifespan. 17 years in the development of physical processes
>>is a reasonable time for growth of an industry. But scaled to the
>>high rate of development in the software industry, it is more like
>>centuries. Perhaps a shorter lifespan (e.g. 1.5 years from the time
>>of granting) would allow inventors to capitalize on moderate or
>>radical innovation in software design, while not hamstringing the
>>industry.
>
>First of all, I doubt that we can reasonably generalize *all* non-algorithmic
>processes as being suitable for a 17-year life span. We certainly can't do
>so for algorithms. Take the well-known RSA patent. How long did it take

>for that patent to become at all profitable?
>
>In any case, a 1.5 year lifespan is most assuredly useless. For one thing, it
>takes years just to get a patent. If the true useful life span of a patent
>is only 1.5 years, that lifespan will be over before patent protection is
>granted. During that time, *anybody* will be able to use the algorithm
>royalty-free.

I think you missed the point here. To reiterate: "(e.g. 1.5 years from
the time of granting)". This means: for example, 1.5 years. Actual
time frame could be debated; I was just suggesting shortening the
lifespan of a patent, based on the fact that the software industry
has a higher rate of development than some other industries.

Also I did not state the the truly useful lifespan of a patent is 1.5
years; this is just a suggested time frame that would offer developers
a chance to make some return on algorithm development without hindering
overall development in the industry. Truly useful and unobvious
algorithms would certainly have a much longer useful lifespan, so the
delay in the patent review process would effectively reward innovative
algorithms more, because by the time the patent were granted, the
algorithm would already enjoy widespread use.

>The result would be that inventors would simply maintain new algorithms as

>trade secrets. It would be the only way to protect the value of the
>invention. Now *that* would fly in the face of the purpose of the patent
>system, since the whole point of that system is to encourage the *sharing*
>of knowledge, in order to advance technology...


>
>
>--
>J. S. Greenfield gre...@thelair.zynet.com
>(So what were you expecting?
>A Gorilla?!) "What's the difference between an orange?"

Here again, the shortened lifespan would reduce the impact of patents
on "obvious" innovations. So even though someone might collect license
fees on a relatively obvious algorithm, it would only be for a short
time, so the industry wouldn't suffer as badly while the discoverers
of truly innovative algorithms would still be rewarded.

This suggestion was intended to address the pragmatic issues involved
in software patents, which are very unlikely to be resolved by
modification of the patent review process. True experts in the field
of computer science are not likely to work for the patent office, and
many others would be unable to do so for conflict-of-interest reasons.
You have repeatedly asked "what is the philosophical difference in
software patents?" I don't understand why there must be a philosophical
difference; there are obvious pragmatic differences because of the
nature of software evolution. New software processes are developed at
very high rates, and their modularity means that they get reused
more frequently than in other industries. In fact, good code is
generally designed to be reusable. I believe this warrants treating
software differently, in the interest of helping the software industry
develop; this is in the interest of government and citizenry, as it
benefits them both. The patent is not a strictly philosophical
institution; e.g. it has a 17-year lifespan--what's philosophical about
that?

--
Jefferson Ogata og...@netcom.com
"Animals without backbones hid from each other or fell down. Clamasaurs and
oysterettes appeared as appetizers. Then came the sponges, which sucked up
about ten percent of all life." - Firesign Theatre

Kai Henningsen

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 7:19:00 AM1/9/95
to
lpu...@netcom.com wrote on 08.01.95 in <lpurpleD...@netcom.com>:

> How about the following: in order to get a patent, inventors must prove
> they have maintained a trade secret for 5 years or so, without anyone
> else independently discovering the invention.

I think this is a very bad idea. First, it says a patent *depends+ on
keeping it secret, which is quite the opposite of what's wanted. Second,
in "fast" industries like software, a patent on 5 year old inventions has
no positive value for the community at all - if it's been kept secret
*and* not reinvented, it's bound to be just about useless.

No, anything that works for a fast industry *must* have a fast lifecycle
*from the beginning*.

If it takes years to get software patents, then software patents are
*necessarily* A Bad Thing[tm]. And why should it? If then only have a
short life time, errors in granting them have much less impact, so it
should be possible to speed the process up.

> That way, you wouldn't have so many patents on obvious inventions,
> but you would get the original intended benefit of patents (the
> invention isn't lost forever if the inventor dies, and the inventor
> has incentive to put it into the public domain after recovering
> the initial R+D costs).

No software invention is lost forever when the inventor dies, *if* it has
got use in a product - you can always reverse engineer the product. That's
the difference between manufacturing process patents and others; it
applies to other industries as well.

By the way, just how do patents give an incentive to put something in the
public domain? Just the opposite, it seems. What they *do* encurage is
*publishing and licensing*. For that to be useful, the life cycle has to
be realistic for the target industry.

Kai
--
Internet: k...@ms.maus.de, k...@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!{ms.maus.de!kh,khms.westfalen.de!kai}

## CrossPoint v3.02 ##

Matthew Russotto

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 11:04:27 AM1/9/95
to
In article <3ephhc$a...@newshost.lanl.gov> gre...@lanl.gov (J. S. Greenfield) writes:

>This past year, didn't IBM offer to provide the PTO with a catalog of
>algorithms, to be used for prior art searches by examiners? Companies like
>IBM are *extremely* concerned about patents being granted for algorithms
>that they have been using for years, and the potentially legal problems
>that would arise from such.

IBM may be concerned, but they have a defense-- they patent everything they
can, and use the patents as bargaining chips. The rest of us are left out
in the cold.

Jonathan Eifrig

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 11:34:49 AM1/9/95
to
In article <hbaker-0801...@192.0.2.1>,

Henry Baker <hba...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I attended an MIT Project MAC Christmas party at Ed Fredkin's house in 1973?
>(possibly 1974) where a number of people including Fredkin, Moses, etc. were
>discussing ways to gain (D)ARPA funding for something as esoteric as number
>theory. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Rivest, Shamir and Adleman were
>also there in attendence. I believe that Fredkin suggested hooking the problem
>up to something involving national security e.g., encryption or something.
>
>I believe that this germ of an idea eventually resulted in the RSA
>algorithm.

Now, this touches on the reason that the RSA patent *really*
pisses me off. Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman developed RSA on Government
research grants! Clearly, Rivest, et. al., didn't need their future
commercial rights to their work to motivate their research; DARPA was
paying their salaries!

It seems the height of idiocy to spend public monies to support
software researchers and then let them patent the results of such
research, thereby denying the public the benefits they were expecting.
If we're going to spend public funds on basic research (and I think we
should), then I think the public as a whole should reap the benefits of
it.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Knee-jerk liberals and all the certified saints of sanctified
humanism are quick to condemn this great and much-maligned Transylvanian
statesman."
-William F. Buckley, Jr., "The Wit and Wisdom of Vlad the Impaler"

Jack Eifrig (eif...@cs.jhu.edu) The Johns Hopkins University, C.S. Dept.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Doug Edwards

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 11:12:13 AM1/9/95
to
Several people have raised the question: if patents on
software and algorithms are to be disallowed, how can we
justify continuing to allow patents on hardware which simply
implements particular algorithms?

I have a short answer for this.

Patents on hardware which does nothing but implement
particular algorithms should *never* be allowed. To get
*any* patent on *anything*, the developer should be required
to demonstrate that realization of the idea being patented
as a physical device is essential and that its function
could not possibly be simulated in software, at least not in
any manner which would be of any practical use whatever.
This would allow patents on medications, alternative energy
sources, pollution-free vehicles, and other things naturally
thought to be entitled to patent protection. It would even
allow patents on computer hardware fabrication techniques,
and on fundamental characteristics of computer processors
which would be of no use to simulate in software on a
different processor. But it would disallow, for instance,
patenting *any* application or implementation of the LZW
compression algorithm --- even in, for instance, modem
hardware.

Think this one over.


John Nagle

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 1:06:31 PM1/9/95
to
ad...@yggdrasil.com (Adam J. Richter) writes:
> A more important question to ask is "would the public have
>RSA if there were no software patent incentives." In many cases, there
>isn't enough evidence to answer this question, but, for RSA, it appears
>that nobody thought to get a patent until the algorithm had been
>published for a while, which is why RSA is not restricted by patents
>in Europe the way it is in the US.

No, the story is that they published before patenting to avoid being
hit with a secrecy order.

John Nagle

John Nagle

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 1:08:21 PM1/9/95
to
ma...@physics7.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>In article <3ephd4$a...@newshost.lanl.gov> gre...@lanl.gov (J. S. Greenfield) writes:

>> I suspect that if everybody had easy access to build circuits, and less
>> access to developing software, we'd be seeing arguments about how circuit
>> patents are evil, terrible, hideous things...

That happened, but it happened back in the 1920s and 1930s, as
radio was getting going. A good discussion for the non-technical reader is
in "Empire of the Air".

John Nagle

Paul Shirley

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 2:31:43 PM1/9/95
to
og...@netcom.com "Jefferson Ogata" writes:
>
>The industry that stands to benefit the most in the near term from
>software patents is the legal profession. Having to hire lawyers


More worrying, we will see the same patent swapping and hoarding that
goes on in most large manufacturing business. In our case that means
companies like Microsoft,Apple,IBM will use technology effectively for
free that smaller companies will have to pay for.


--
Paul Shirley: SemiProfessional Coffee & Chocolate Taster

Paul Shirley

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 2:39:28 PM1/9/95
to
kst...@crewstone.com "Keith Stone" writes:

>Actually, if EFF wanted to do something REALLY contructive, they would
>help work out a method to speed research for patent research. The root
>cause of this debate is that Compuserve inadvertantly released into the
>public domain a file format that required the use of a patented algorithm
>do create.
>

>Fighting an existing patent is a waste of time and money, since they've
>already established a precedent for licencing the technology.
>


So the best way to find patents is to stop them *before* they get the
patent. A good way is to make sure every possible idea however trivial
gets published, archived and indexed (the net seems a reasonable place)
and then thrust forcefully at patent offices round the world as prior art.

If thorough prior art searches had been performed I suspect very few
software patents would exist.

Eric E. Bardes

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 3:28:32 PM1/9/95