Re: RAR under linux: any alternative?
On Thursday 15 December 2005 22:15, Mike McCarty wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> I see, and many thanks for the link. The one thing it doesn't
>> explain however, is why the USTPO allowed 2 different entities to
>> patent the lzw algorythm. That is still a puzzlement to me, but
>> what do I know.
>Umm, I haven't read them, nor am I a lawyer. However, I took a short
>course in "Intellectual Property Law" a few years ago, and learned a
>little something, and this is my understanding.
>One does not patent algorithms, whatever you may have read or
>heard. Patents are issued for exactly two things: processes and
>devices. Now these terms are pretty broadly interpreted. For
>example, a mouse with a particular set of genes may be a device.
>So, the mathematical algorithm, in the sense of means of computation
>of a given result, is not patentable. What is patentable is the
>application of a given algorithm to create a process. For example,
>the computations involved in computing the LZW compression of any
>given stream is not patentable. But the application of that
>computation to the compression of a video image *is* patentable.
>So the same algorithm, if it is applied in different ways, may
>result in more than one patentable process.
>So this may be an answer to your question.
Interesting, Mike and thanks, another example of why we need to
overhaul the USTPO. Its busted. But then WE knew that already.
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should use this
address: <firstname.lastname@example.org> which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.