[8533] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Multimedia has been patented
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barry Shein)
Sun Nov 21 22:46:51 1993
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 22:46:16 -0500
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
To: 0005066432@mcimail.com
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company"'s message of Sun, 21 Nov 1993 07:30:54 -0500 (EST) <0119931121073000/0005066432NA1EM-d100000@MCIMAIL.COM>
>From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@MCIMAIL.COM>
>Some people have been upset over what is referred to as the "patenting of
>mathematics" with the PKP patents on public-key cryptography. If these
>men invented the particular means of doing this, they are entitled to
>protection.
No, the correct wording would be "they MAY WELL be entitled to
protection". No one made you judge, jury and executioner.
Are they also entitled to broadening it to ANY scheme involving two
keys, one private and one public?
That's the issue, not so much whether or not their specific way of
doing this is patentable (tho even that's contestable), but whether
they can broaden it to anything vaguely resembling the subject of
their patent, regardless of the mechanisms employed.
Historically if someone, eg, invented a good elevator brake and then
someone else came up with a completely different method for stopping
an elevator then the latter wouldn't be considered a violation of the
first.
What we have here is, to pursue the analogy, someone invents an
elevator brake and then proceeds to lay claim to anything that comes
along which slows down or stops an elevator.
Historically that's pretty much w/o precedent. It's one thing when
there really is only one way to do something, and another when one
lays claim to any method of accomplishing the same goal rather than
just their specific mechanism.
>I'd be more concerned with the (IMHO) unconstitutional stand
>of the U.S. Government that one needs a license to export computer
>programs (which are a form of writing) which do cryptography, in a clear
>violation of the 1st Amendment.
The 1st amendment has never held much sway when the "speech" involved
may be giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.
One can certainly argue that on a case by case basis, but I think your
appeal to the constitution is without any merit so long as the govt
bases it upon national security, freedom of speech doesn't protect you
if you reveal what is considered to be a threat to nat'l security.
Now one can argue that the specific application of those laws to
algorithms which are completely available to any "enemies" is
ill-founded and should be struck down as silly.
But there's no 1st amendment issue anywhere to be found in that (at
least not until the nat'l security interest is shown to be invalid),
it's simply a policy matter. They can release the munitions claims on
any number of well-disclosed cryptographic techniques (e.g. DES) but
still hold others as non-disclosable. Would you claim that there
exists no cryptographic method which should fall under nat'l security?
Should the folks who know the cryptographic methods used in moving to
defcon 5 (or one, I always forget, full-scale nuclear war) be allowed
to share their knowledge publicly lest their 1st amendment rights be
violated?
>The Securities and Exchange Commission
>had the same unconstitutional stance on newsletters until a court told
>them they can't do that.
Since to my knowledge the SEC doesn't generally dabble in national
security matters nor regulation of the export of munitions I don't see
the analogy.
>Someone here asked me why I said that if there is an issue involved, the
>place to argue it is in the courts, with congress, or with the PTO's
>administration; I'll say that arguing it here is an easy way to vent
>one's spleen but is an exercise in futility. If the laws are so
>intolerable that they are damaging to society, then the laws need to be
>changed.
So then why do you bother to post?
>I have yet to see anyone who has given a really valid reason why patenting
>of industrial articles is acceptable, but patenting of software is not.
Perhaps your problem is myopia and not with the arguments?
>What does a new and improved paint have that entitles it to patent
>protection, but that a new and improved sort routine does not?
A 200+ year history of not allowing patents on mathematical devices?
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
