On Thursday 15 December 2005 22:15, Mike McCarty wrote: >Gene Heskett wrote: >>>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html >> >> I see, and many thanks for the link. The one thing it doesn't >> explain however, is why the USTPO allowed 2 different entities to >> patent the lzw algorythm. That is still a puzzlement to me, but >> what do I know. > >Umm, I haven't read them, nor am I a lawyer. However, I took a short >course in "Intellectual Property Law" a few years ago, and learned a >little something, and this is my understanding. > >One does not patent algorithms, whatever you may have read or >heard. Patents are issued for exactly two things: processes and >devices. Now these terms are pretty broadly interpreted. For >example, a mouse with a particular set of genes may be a device. > >So, the mathematical algorithm, in the sense of means of computation >of a given result, is not patentable. What is patentable is the >application of a given algorithm to create a process. For example, >the computations involved in computing the LZW compression of any >given stream is not patentable. But the application of that >computation to the compression of a video image *is* patentable. >So the same algorithm, if it is applied in different ways, may >result in more than one patentable process. > >So this may be an answer to your question. > >Mike
Interesting, Mike and thanks, another example of why we need to overhaul the USTPO. Its busted. But then WE knew that already. -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should use this address: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]