lied@ihlts.UUCP (Bob Lied) (07/22/85)
>> I'm no lawyer, but from my reading of general articles on patent law, >> an algorithm is one of the things that specifically CAN'T be patented. > I'm no lawyer either but a patent attorney told me that algorithms are > not patentable. In fact only firmware that is tightly bound to patentable > hardware will even be considered. We were talking to a patent attorney a couple of weeks ago, and he explained briefly what is patentable. Pure software is very definitely patentable; however, the people who make the patent decisions are usually not software types, so it's easier to convince them if the patent has pictures of physical objects. From a booklet on patent law, (written in 1981): Scientific theories, mathematical formulas and laws of nature in the abstract are not patentable, even though they might also be thought of as processes. However, inventions which take advantage of these may be patentable. As a result of a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in March 1981, virtually all software and firmware inventions are patentable subject matter. I think the first quote is right -- algorithms are "mathematical formulas" that can't be patented -- but any implementation in software probably stands a chance as "inventions which take advantage." The patent would probably fail on grounds of prior art, though, since the algorithm is often well known before an implementation in software can be submitted for a patent. Oh yeah. I'm no lawyer either. And wouldn't admit it if I was. Bob Lied ihnp4!ihlts!lied Disclaimer: The statements above are mostly my opinion; any resemblance to truth or corporate policy is purely unintentional.