14517324d0
- fix other errors introduced when committing r226436 - add 'function' to a sentence where it makes sense Submitted by: delphij Submitted by: dougb Submitted by: jhb Approved by: dougb Approved by: jhb
143 lines
6.7 KiB
Plaintext
143 lines
6.7 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
$FreeBSD$
|
|
|
|
From: James A. Woods <jaw@eos.arc.nasa.gov>
|
|
|
|
>From vn Fri Dec 2 18:05:27 1988
|
|
Subject: Re: Looking for C source for RSA
|
|
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
|
|
|
|
# Illegitimi noncarborundum
|
|
|
|
Patents are a tar pit.
|
|
|
|
A good case can be made that most are just a license to sue, and nothing
|
|
is illegal until a patent is upheld in court.
|
|
|
|
For example, if you receive netnews by means other than 'nntp',
|
|
these very words are being modulated by 'compress',
|
|
a variation on the patented Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithm.
|
|
|
|
Original Ziv-Lempel is patent number 4,464,650, and the more powerful
|
|
LZW method is #4,558,302. Yet despite any similarities between 'compress'
|
|
and LZW (the public-domain 'compress' code was designed and given to the
|
|
world before the ink on the Welch patent was dry), no attorneys from Sperry
|
|
(the assignee) have asked you to unplug your Usenet connection.
|
|
|
|
Why? I can't speak for them, but it is possible the claims are too broad,
|
|
or, just as bad, not broad enough. ('compress' does things not mentioned
|
|
in the Welch patent.) Maybe they realize that they can commercialize
|
|
LZW better by selling hardware implementations rather than by licensing
|
|
software. Again, the LZW software delineated in the patent is *not*
|
|
the same as that of 'compress'.
|
|
|
|
At any rate, court-tested software patents are a different animal;
|
|
corporate patents in a portfolio are usually traded like baseball cards
|
|
to shut out small fry rather than actually be defended before
|
|
non-technical juries. Perhaps RSA will undergo this test successfully,
|
|
although the grant to "exclude others from making, using, or selling"
|
|
the invention would then only apply to the U.S. (witness the
|
|
Genentech patent of the TPA molecule in the U.S. but struck down
|
|
in Great Britain as too broad.)
|
|
|
|
The concept is still exotic for those who learned in school the rule of thumb
|
|
that one may patent "apparatus" but not an "idea".
|
|
Apparently this all changed in Diamond v. Diehr (1981) when the U. S. Supreme
|
|
Court reversed itself.
|
|
|
|
Scholars should consult the excellent article in the Washington and Lee
|
|
Law Review (fall 1984, vol. 41, no. 4) by Anthony and Colwell for a
|
|
comprehensive survey of an area which will remain murky for some time.
|
|
|
|
Until the dust clears, how you approach ideas which are patented depends
|
|
on how paranoid you are of a legal onslaught. Arbitrary? Yes. But
|
|
the patent bar of the CCPA (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals)
|
|
thanks you for any uncertainty as they, at least, stand to gain
|
|
from any trouble.
|
|
|
|
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|
|
From: James A. Woods <jaw@eos.arc.nasa.gov>
|
|
Subject: Re: Looking for C source for RSA (actually 'compress' patents)
|
|
|
|
In article <2042@eos.UUCP> you write:
|
|
>The concept is still exotic for those who learned in school the rule of thumb
|
|
>that one may patent "apparatus" but not an "idea".
|
|
|
|
A rule of thumb that has never been completely valid, as any chemical
|
|
engineer can tell you. (Chemical processes were among the earliest patents,
|
|
as I recall.)
|
|
|
|
ah yes -- i date myself when relaying out-of-date advice from elderly
|
|
attorneys who don't even specialize in patents. one other interesting
|
|
class of patents include the output of optical lens design programs,
|
|
which yield formulae which can then fairly directly can be molded
|
|
into glass. although there are restrictions on patenting equations,
|
|
the "embedded systems" seem to fly past the legal gauntlets.
|
|
|
|
anyway, I'm still learning about intellectual property law after
|
|
several conversations from a Unisys (nee sperry) lawyer re 'compress'.
|
|
|
|
it's more complicated than this, but they're letting (oral
|
|
communication only) software versions of 'compress' slide
|
|
as far as licensing fees go. this includes 'arc', 'stuffit',
|
|
and other commercial wrappers for 'compress'. yet they are
|
|
signing up licensees for hardware chips. Hewlett-Packard
|
|
supposedly has an active vlsi project, and Unisys has
|
|
board-level LZW-based tape controllers. (to build LZW into
|
|
a disk controller would be strange, as you'd have to build
|
|
in a filesystem too!)
|
|
|
|
it's byzantine
|
|
that Unisys is in a tiff with HP regarding the patents,
|
|
after discovering some sort of "compress" button on some
|
|
HP terminal product. why? well, professor Abraham Lempel jumped
|
|
from being department chairman of computer science at technion in
|
|
Israel to sperry (where he got the first patent), but then to work
|
|
at Hewlett-Packard on sabbatical. the second Welch patent
|
|
is only weakly derivative of the first, so they want chip
|
|
licenses and HP relented. however, everyone agrees something
|
|
like the current Unix implementation is the way to go with
|
|
software, so HP (and UCB) long ago asked spencer Thomas and i to sign
|
|
off on copyright permission (although they didn't need to, it being pd).
|
|
Lempel, HP, and Unisys grumbles they can't make money off the
|
|
software since a good free implementation (not the best --
|
|
i have more ideas!) escaped via Usenet. (Lempel's own pascal
|
|
code was apparently horribly slow.)
|
|
i don't follow the IBM 'arc' legal bickering; my impression
|
|
is that the pc folks are making money off the archiver/wrapper
|
|
look/feel of the thing [if ms-dos can be said to have a look and feel].
|
|
|
|
now where is telebit with the compress firmware? in a limbo
|
|
netherworld, probably, with sperry still welcoming outfits
|
|
to sign patent licenses, a common tactic to bring other small fry
|
|
into the fold. the guy who crammed 12-bit compress into the modem
|
|
there left. also what is transpiring with 'compress' and sys 5 rel 4?
|
|
beats me, but if sperry got a hold of them on these issues,
|
|
at&t would likely re-implement another algorithm if they
|
|
thought 'compress' infringes. needful to say, i don't think
|
|
it does after the above mentioned legal conversation.
|
|
my own beliefs on whether algorithms should be patentable at all
|
|
change with the weather. if the courts finally nail down
|
|
patent protection for algorithms, academic publication in
|
|
textbooks will be somewhat at odds with the engineering world,
|
|
where the textbook codes will simply be a big tease to get
|
|
money into the patent holder coffers...
|
|
|
|
oh, if you implement LZW from the patent, you won't get
|
|
good rates because it doesn't mention adaptive table reset,
|
|
lack thereof being *the* serious deficiency of Thomas' first version.
|
|
|
|
now i know that patent law generally protects against independent
|
|
re-invention (like the 'xor' hash function pleasantly mentioned
|
|
in the patent [but not the paper]).
|
|
but the upshot is that if anyone ever wanted to sue us,
|
|
we're partially covered with
|
|
independently-developed twists, plus the fact that some of us work
|
|
in a bureaucratic morass (as contractor to a public agency in my case).
|
|
|
|
quite a mess, huh? I've wanted to tell someone this stuff
|
|
for a long time, for posterity if nothing else.
|
|
|
|
james
|
|
|