Flames on patents.

[Tony Plate]

Some people appear to be concerned that known and published
algorithms will be patented.  This concern is mostly misplaced.

There are 3 requirements that an invention must satisfy in
order to be patentable:

(1) novelty (the invention must be new)
(2) utility (must be useful)
(3) non-obviousness (to a person versed in the appropriate art)

A patent can be invalidated by the existence of "prior art".
Any version of an algorithm, used or published before
the date of the patent application, constitutes "prior art".

A problem with proving the existence of prior art via implementation
is that computer programs get deleted, espcially old ones that ran
on systems no longer in existence.  With published algorithms
there is no such problem.

Requirement (3) is particularly contentious in the field
of patents on algorithms.

Someone writes:
> I apologise for using bandwidth on this irrelevance.

I apologise too, and suggest that people interested in this
issue use the newgroup "comp.patents" for further discussion.
There has been much information posted in this newsgroup,
including lists of software patents, and requests for examples
of prior art.

Tony Plate