RE: Rivest Patent

Vin McLellan (or someone using his name), in an otherwise closely argued
posting,  subtly missed the point with:

[...snip...]

> I was never impressed by the absolutist argument against
> patents on math-based processes. Mr. Cordian summarized
> this POV: "The fact that the [RSA] patent couldn't be 
> successfully challenged even though its mathematical
> underpinnings were well known years prior reflects badly only
> upon the notion of mathematical patents, and hardly refutes the 
> facts in evidence." By that logic, it seems to me, a basic
> knowledge of physics could invalidate almost all patents
> for mechanical inventions.)

> [...snip...]
> 
The real point is surely  that a patent for a device invented by someone
with  a basic knowledge of physics is used to protect the *invention*
not the *knowledge*. They are not used to prevent anyone else inventing
another device using the same basic knowledge of physics. 

Even if it is perfectly just for the RSA (or any other) patent "taken as
a whole" to be used to protect  "not merely a disembodied mathematical
concept but rather a specific machine";  that *doesn''t* mean it is
neccessarily just to use the patent to protect that "disembodied
mathematical concept" when it is used in some other "specific machine".
But software patents *are* used to try to stop people employing the same
algorithms in other inventions. So, despite  the ingenuous  ruling of
the court they *are* being used to try to control "disembodied
mathematical concepts" - in other words ideas.

I have no idea if Watt had a patent on the steam governor. But I bet he
didn't try to take one out on Boyle's Law.


Ken Brown

I conceed your point.  Nicely reasoned. Thank you.

	_Vin


At 12:12 PM -0500 11/18/98, Brown, R Ken wrote:

>The real point is surely  that a patent for a device invented by someone
>with  a basic knowledge of physics is used to protect the *invention*
>not the *knowledge*. They are not used to prevent anyone else inventing
>another device using the same basic knowledge of physics.
>
>Even if it is perfectly just for the RSA (or any other) patent "taken as
>a whole" to be used to protect  "not merely a disembodied mathematical
>concept but rather a specific machine";  that *doesn''t* mean it is
>neccessarily just to use the patent to protect that "disembodied
>mathematical concept" when it is used in some other "specific machine".
>But software patents *are* used to try to stop people employing the same
>algorithms in other inventions. So, despite  the ingenuous  ruling of
>the court they *are* being used to try to control "disembodied
>mathematical concepts" - in other words ideas.
>
>I have no idea if Watt had a patent on the steam governor. But I bet he
>didn't try to take one out on Boyle's Law.
>
>
>Ken Brown


-----
      Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin@shore.net>
  53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548
                         -- <@><@> --

> >I have no idea if Watt had a patent on the steam governor. But I bet he
> >didn't try to take one out on Boyle's Law.

I seem to recall that he tried to patent the idea of feedback -
and was refused. He got the govenor patent though.

I think the biggest problems are not so much in the extensions
to the internationally accepted scope of patentability that the
US patent office has uniquely indulged in in the past but the
more recent accretions. Business models and experimental data
are now being allowed - what possible justification can there
be for giving the first person to mechanically sequence a piece
of DNA exclusive commercial rights to exploit that knowledge.

Ulitmately the US PTO has become an international object of
ridicule and contempt. The PTO operates under a condition of
moral hazard - it knows that it is likely to be sued for refusing
a patent but cannot be sued for incompetently (or for that
matter even maliciously granting one).

One enterprising chappie even patented PEM - using the RFC as
a reference in the claim! There are numerous examples of
similar negligence. I can provide several examples of US patents
issued with identical independent claims, in one case near 
identicaly worded.

Rather than debate the PTO's actions of 20 years ago it would seem
more appropriate to discuss their current actions. 

		Phill