gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) (06/14/90)
I have been watching the discussion about Tetris, copyrighting and patenting. While it is true that you cannot patent an idea, I have just encountered what appears to be the exception to the rule. I was going to write an RSA cyphering program for the Amiga (PD probably), but I received some messages from several people saying that the RSA is patented by a company called RSA Inc. Apparently the licensing fee is $600,000 (no typo here 8-(. I have bee thinking to myself that this is nonsense since RSA is a mathematical concept (and a beautiful one at that 8-). You can't patent mathematical concepts (I get first grabs on addition 8-) I am not certain whether or not it is true that RSA Inc. actually has a patent on the RSA algorithm. If it is true, it seems painfully apparent that the patenting process has some major problems with it (ie, with some trickery, you could probably patent breathing 8-) See ya, Ralph gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu gilgalad@zip.eecs.umich.edu gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu Ralph_Seguin@ub.cc.umich.edu gilgalad@sparky.eecs.umich.edu USER6TUN@UMICHUB.BITNET Ralph Seguin | In order to get infinitely many monkeys to type 565 South Zeeb Rd. | something that actually makes sense, you need to Ann Arbor, MI 48103 | have infinitely many monkey editors as well. (313) 662-1506
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/14/90)
In article <2635@zipeecs.umich.edu> gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) writes: >I have been watching the discussion about Tetris, copyrighting and patenting. >While it is true that you cannot patent an idea, Wrongo, dude. You can't "copyright" an idea or invention. You CAN patent it, though. Patents protect ideas themselves as they are expressed in machines, articles, processes, "composition of matter" and new uses of these items. Recent judicial decisions have broadened the area of patentable items also to inventions expressed as machine-based programs. >I have just encountered >what appears to be the exception to the rule. I was going to write an RSA >cyphering program for the Amiga (PD probably), but I received some messages >from several people saying that the RSA is patented by a company called RSA >Inc. Absolutely true. RSA stands for Rivest, Shamir and Adleman, the three original inventors of the RSA crypto system. I was fortunate of studying with Adleman while working on my PhD at USC. And I talked to him several times on the patenting issues. It took them several years to get the patent finally approved, mostly because patents in general take a LONG time to be finally awarded (an average of 3 years). When a patent is awarded, the patent holder mantains the right to exclude others from making, selling or using the invention for 17 years. Of course, the older of the patent can SELL the right to others for a fee. Right now, ANYBODY that wants to include RSA in ANY product or system, MUST first get approval from R.S.&A and if approved he must pay a licensing fee to the holders of the patent. That's the LAW. >Apparently the licensing fee is $600,000 (no typo here 8-(. That's cheap. Other patents can cost much more. >I have bee thinking to myself that this is nonsense since RSA is a mathematical >concept (and a beautiful one at that 8-). You can't patent mathematical >concepts (I get first grabs on addition 8-) Sorry to burst your bubble, but while you can't in general patent mathematical formulas, you CAN patent inventions as they are expressed in machine programs IF they are "novel" and "not obvious" at the time of creation. The patent office decided that the RSA scheme qualifies the test of novelty and non-obviousness. Get a good book on patents like "Patent it yourself" by David Pressman, Nolo Press, if you need more specifics. >I am not certain whether or not it is true that RSA Inc. actually has a >patent on the RSA algorithm. If it is true, it seems painfully apparent >that the patenting process has some major problems with it (ie, with some >trickery, you could probably patent breathing 8-) I see no problem in having the Patent Office award patent to inventions like the RSA crypto system. In fact, I see no reason why you should not pay for using somebody's else's invention. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
kim@uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) (06/15/90)
In article <2635@zipeecs.umich.edu>, gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) writes: > > I have been watching the discussion about Tetris, copyrighting and patenting. > While it is true that you cannot patent an idea, I have just encountered > what appears to be the exception to the rule. I was going to write an RSA > cyphering program for the Amiga (PD probably), but I received some messages > from several people saying that the RSA is patented by a company called RSA There is no exception here. RSA has a patent on a specific algorithm, not an "idea". The confusion here on the net seems to be in the way different people define "idea". I personally agree with the statement "you can't patent an idea". It this case the "idea" is something along the lines of "encoding information so as to be indecypherable to all but selected persons". Clearly NOT something that could be patented. Specific ways of implementing that idea do seem to be patentable ... however the courts may rule otherwise should the validity of a patent be challenged. > patent on the RSA algorithm. If it is true, it seems painfully apparent > that the patenting process has some major problems with it (ie, with some > trickery, you could probably patent breathing 8-) Supposedly (I do not have 1st hand knowledge of this), some person as a patent on the use of the xor function, as a means of providing a non-destructive cursor on terminals. And while nobody actually believes this would stand up under a serious challenge in court, nobody has actually done so, as the person licenses the patent for only $100 to anyone. Cheaper that *any* legal action could possibly be. NOW. CAN WE PLEASE KEEP THESE DISCUSSIONS OUT OF .TECH and .HARDWARE? Note the Followup-To line, and removal of .hw in this response. THANK YOU! /kim [ Any thoughts or opinions which may or may not have been expressed ] [ herein are my own. They are not necessarily those of my employer. ] -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,uunet,oliveb,ames}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 BIX: kdevaughn GEnie: K.DEVAUGHN CIS: 76535,25
cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (06/16/90)
Having read the RSA patent, I can tell you that they phrase the
patent in terms of a mechanism that can create and use keys. An
example mechanism using and/or/nor gates is described. Some people
forget that "software" is nothing more than a simple abstraction
on "hardware". Most people are comfortable with the idea of seeing
a hardware implementation of something and then replacing it with
a microprocessor and some firmware to do the same function. The
reverse is also true.
The question becomes has there ever been a case of patent infringment
where the infringer developed a program that implemented a patented
hardware idea? My guess is that the X-or cursor example is one of
those.
--
--Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: <none> Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
"I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!"