Subj : Re: Software Patents
To   : comp.programming
From : Joe Seigh
Date : Sat Jul 09 2005 08:03 am

websnarf@gmail.com wrote:
> Paul Dietz wrote:
> 
>>CBFalconer wrote:
>>
>>>The only effect of the patent was to stop all development cold.
>>>Other techniques were developed, and by now have far outperformed
>>>LZW. [1]
>>
>>This is actually an argument used by patent advocates.  The idea
>>is that a patent forces competitors to explore workarounds they
>>otherwise would have ignored.
> 
> 
> Well, that works for LZW, but what about Arithmetic Encoding?  IBM has
> a patent on that one (or at least the most reasonably practically known
> implementation of it).  See, for its purpose, AE is known to be
> optimal.  No work arounds, which involve choosing a different
> algorithm, will help.  IBM has managed to patent a method which is
> mathematically proven optimal -- even though the patent office doesn't
> patent mathematics (Benoit Mandelbrot tried to patent the Mandelbrot
> set  and was told that "Mathematics cannot be patented").
> 
You can't patent mathematical formulas, just algorithms that have to be associated
some form of process on computing machinery.  That's why you'll see wording to that effect
in software patents.  It's analogous to chemical formulas.  You can't patent them
but you can patent a process to make the chemical.
 

-- 
Joe Seigh

When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
When you get hardware, you make software.

.