brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (12/05/89)
In article <45686@sgi.sgi.com> bron@bronze.wpd.sgi.com (Bron Campbell Nelson) writes: > Ummm ... it has always been my understanding that an *algorithm* is not > patentable. > Could some lawyer type clarify this? I'm not a lawyer, but anyway: You are correct that a ``method'' may not be patented; the law says so explicitly. Nevertheless, Brad is correct that Unisys holds a patent covering LZW. Apparently, IBM holds an intersecting patent; in any case, until either is tested in court, the patents are valid. On the other hand, Brad is incorrect in his claim that there is ``no such thing'' as a public-domain LZW implementation. There are a few non-copyrighted LZW implementations running around; and until a court enforces the patents, the situation won't change. ---Dan