===== Original Message from Roger Books <books@devnull.dms.state.fl.us> at
1/06/97 2:17 pm
>Message Forwarded by:  NewsFeed <NewsFeed@access-laserpress.com>
>
>>
>> Perhaps the best way to gauge the current interpretation is to look at
>> a recently issued U.S. patent that is alleged to be a "software"
>> patent.  I think you will find that the software part of the patent is
>> described always in association with either a process it controls or a
>> piece of hardware which it likewise controls.  I doubt that you will
>> find that the software is patented all by itself with no connection or
>> reference to any controlled process or hardware.
>>
>> If anyone is aware of a recent "software" patent that makes no
>> reference to a controlled process or hardware, please bring it to my
>> attention.
>
>RSA Inc.  The patent is for public key encryption.  They have not only
>defended this patent for the exact algorithm, they have defended it
>for algorithms using a different formula to accomplish the same task.
>If you need more info, as I pointed out once before, go to http://www.lpf.org.
>And yes, I have already talked this over with several lawyers, both
>of whom told me that software had to be copyrighted, but when they actually
>looked they found a plethora of software patents.
>
>It doesn't matter what you THINK the law says.  It only matters how the
>courts interpert and enforce the laws, and so far software patents have
>stood.  There is hope that this may change though.
>
>>  I have at least one powerful mathematical algorithm I have
>> discovered that I would like to patent that does not lend itself to
>> the control of a process or machine.  I would very much like to see
>> how such a patent is written.
>
>Check out RSA Inc's patent.
>
>Roger
>
>(CCing Warren Davis because I'm not sure my posts are making it to the list.)
===== Comments by kfleming@access-laserpress.com (Kevin P Fleming) at
1/06/97 1:57 pm
Well, I'm no lawyer either, but after a 15-minute perusal of the relevant
RSA patents, I'd have to seriously disagree.

You are confusing _algorithms_, which are methods of accomplishing a task,
with _software_, which is (usually) a specific implementation of one or more
algorithms. The RSA patents do not attempt or purport in any way to "patent"
an implementation of their algorithms; rather they only patent a specific
process of mathematical transformations that can be used to implement a
public key cryptosystem.

While certainly there can be debate about whether some of their claims are
too broad and encompass cryptosystems that do not involve the dot products
of prime numbers, this still has no basis for being called a "software"
patent.

As Warren has already pointed out, I'd expect that 99+% of the patents out
there that could be called in some fashion "software" patents only include
the software as an integral part of an integrated control system for the
patented process, i.e. the software is there only as a by-product of the
process, it is not the reason for the patent itself.

In fact, I can't see that anyone would voluntarily choose to patent a piece
of software itself, because it would preclude them from
changing/enhancing/whatever that software and still claim patent protection
for it. They could only claim patent protection for portions of the
software, which would get very sticky and would probably be nearly
impossible to defend in court. However, copyright protection extends to all
written material, so each successive release/version of the software is
inherently granted copyright protection.


Kevin P. Fleming
kfleming@access-laserpress.com