w8sdz@brl-smoke.ARPA (Keith B. Petersen ) (06/18/88)
Reading SEA's own documentation for any version of ARC you will find
that the program was based on the Unix "compress", Richard Greenlaw's
"squeeze/unsqueeze" and the *copyrighted* LZW crunch. The copyright for
LZW is owned by Unisys. Perhaps it's time for them to assert their
rights and sue SEA. It seems to me that SEA's copyright is invalid
because one cannot take another copyrighted work, modify it and then
copyright it.
It seems that SEA has opened a "can of worms". After announcing the
availability of an update of SEA's ARC program, I received the
following message which raises serious doubts as to the validity of
SEA's copyright. Since this is a private message I have omitted
the sender's address.
--forwarded message--
To: Keith Petersen <W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA>
Re: Message for the authors of ARC
I don't know how to get in touch with the authors of ARC (I didn't see
any addresses in INFO-IBMPC), but since you seem to be posting information
about new versions, etc., I thought that you might be able to forward the
following mail to them.
1) The correct spelling of the name is Ziv. So you should call it
Lempel-Ziv (or Ziv-Lempel because that was the order of the author's
names in the original paper) encoding.
2) The original Ziv-Lempel method is patented (#4,464,650 -- Willard
Eastman, Abraham Lempel, Jacob Ziv, Martin Cohen) assigned to Sperry
Univac (now Unisys). Since the Welch modifications are to this
method, I would think that some sort of license agreement from Unisys
would be necessary (this is really only a practical problem for
commercial customers). Does such an agreement exist?
--end forwarded message--
--
Keith Petersen
Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA
Uucp: {bellcore,decwrl,harvard,lll-crg,ucbvax,uw-beaver}!simtel20.arpa!w8sdz
GEnie: W8SDZtif@cpe.UUCP (06/23/88)
Written 11:15 am Jun 20, 1988 by kadsma.UUCP!pajerek in cpe:comp.sources.d >In article <8111@brl-smoke.ARPA> w8sdz@brl.arpa (Keith Petersen) writes: >>2) The original Ziv-Lempel method is patented (#4,464,650 -- >Exactly how is it that this happened? Why is a compression method patentable, >but the electronic spreadsheet isn't? I do not know anything about patent laws (or any other laws come to think of it) but ... To take a stab at your question: It seems more appropriate to patent a specific method rather than a general process. For example, you wouldn't patent the concept of refining oil, but the specific method of doing so. And, *I* think the courts would understand that spreadsheets have been used since the beginning of time (well, almost :-) ). Moving an age-old concept to a computer is hardly patentable. ("I'll patent doing Accounts Payable electronically" :-) ) Paul Chamberlain Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp. ihnp4!sys1!cpe!tif
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (06/27/88)
Written 11:15 am Jun 20, 1988 by kadsma.UUCP!pajerek in cpe:comp.sources.d >In article <8111@brl-smoke.ARPA> w8sdz@brl.arpa (Keith Petersen) writes: >>2) The original Ziv-Lempel method is patented (#4,464,650 -- >Exactly how is it that this happened? Why is a compression method patentable, >but the electronic spreadsheet isn't? Ok, based on general readings about patent laws, here's they way I think it works.... An algorithm *shouldn't* be patentable. ie: if I figured out the quadratic equation today (and no one else ever had before) I shouldn't be able to patent it. If I wrote a program that used the quadratic equation I'd just discovered, I could copyright the program but not the quadratic equation. Kinda like patenting electricity or something. You can't patent laws of physics, nature, math, or naturally occuring processes, etc. Unfortunately, I've based this on common sense, something patent and copyright courts rarely seem to have. -- Skate UNIX or go home, boogie boy... "But why should I type "rm -r $HOME" if I want to play trek???" J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ..!bellcore!tness1!/
ritchie@hpldola.HP.COM (Dave Ritchie) (06/29/88)
>>In article <8111@brl-smoke.ARPA> w8sdz@brl.arpa (Keith Petersen) writes: >>>2) The original Ziv-Lempel method is patented (#4,464,650 -- >>Exactly how is it that this happened? Why is a compression method patentable, >>but the electronic spreadsheet isn't? > >An algorithm *shouldn't* be patentable. ie: if I figured out the >quadratic equation today (and no one else ever had before) I shouldn't >be able to patent it. If I wrote a program that used the quadratic >equation I'd just discovered, I could copyright the program but >not the quadratic equation. > As I recall from the original article in IEEE Computer, wasn't the patent issued for the use of LZW as a compresson method for data written to/from disk drives? dave
cherry@anb02.UUCP (06/30/88)
It is possible to patent an algorithm and software. I recently received
letters of patent on a fluid multi-deminsional relational database. The
patent included several 'claims' and also included illustrations describing
its operation. I was lucky enough to get a VERY GOOD patent attorney who
helped me write the description.
You may patent processes (physical, chemical, numerical, ...) and true
'inventions' which are novel and have a true purpose. It helps if you can
provide a sample of the intended application but, be careful not to limit
your invention to the example.
Patents are a lot of fun. I've got quite a collection but, the writeup
and presentation have more to do with receiving a patent than just the
concept. It can be done but, its a lot more difficult to patent software
than it is hardware. Its interesting to note that patented software is
better protected than patented hardware.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.C. & Zot
_ /| PUP/GV + Cherry.STCWR
\`o_O' XNS + Cherry:STCWR:Xerox
=( )= Aachk! Phfut! ARPA - rocksanne!anb02!cherry%cs.rochester.EDU
U + rocksanne!bob
+ cherry.stcwr@Xerox.COM
- cherry%anb02.CTS.COM
- anb02!cherry%gryphon.CTS.COM
UUCP + rocksanne!bob
+ = work, - = home - {rocksanne | gryphon | wright}!anb02!cherry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------simcha@humming.UUCP (Simcha Lerner) (07/01/88)
> >An algorithm *shouldn't* be patentable. ie: if I figured out the >quadratic equation today (and no one else ever had before) I shouldn't >be able to patent it. If I wrote a program that used the quadratic >equation I'd just discovered, I could copyright the program but >not the quadratic equation. > > ..!bellcore!tness1!/ This is not the case. For example, the RSA algorithm for public key encryption is patented, and RS&A make a nice sum of money in royalties. Simcha Lerner ...(harvard | talcott)!humming!simcha