30 Dec
2019
30 Dec
'19
3:43 a.m.
software is currently non-patentable. Not sure the order of when it was/wasnt but
currently is not.
________________________________________
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of Paul Koning via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 5:09 PM
To: Fred Cisin; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: First Internet message
On Dec 26, 2019, at 12:23 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
And, a Happy Humbug to you, too!
Fleas Navy Dad and Yo new huevo! spellling?
The rules have changed over time. Whether that's by bureaucratic fiat or by changes
to the law I'm not sure.
For example, at one point software wasn't considered patentable, which meant Rivest,
Shamir, and Adleman had to twist themselves into some contortions to patent the RSA
algorithm. It was done by describing it as a device, I think. Not long afterwards,
software patents became possible. The Xerox work may have been in the earlier period.
Some companies weren't as serious about patents as others; I worked for a startup
around 1997 that didn't care to patent anything, which was really rather stupid of
them. But large companies like Xerox do tend to understand their options here.
paul
I^@^Ym not familiar with U.S. law but didn^@^Yt
Xerox ^@^Xown^@^Y the patent(s) t$ technology? Again to my knowledge Microsoft and Apple
both ^@^Xappropriated^@^Y and/or ^@^Xmisapproriated^@^Y, depending on your point-of-view,
this exact technology!
Xerox took the position that ideas like that were not patentable, and could not be
hoarded for financial gain. It is not clear to me whether that was a truly altruistic
position, or a tacit acknowledgement that it was resistance is futile.