Re: libdts patent issue?
On 7/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <email@example.com> wrote:
> I think you're missing Arnoud's point. It's not math, it's an
> application of math to the problem domain of message encryption. That
> makes it statutory subject matter for patenting, which math as such is
"it" is rather unclear here.
There's several values for "it", one of which includes the math, and the
other which includes the physical process of encrypting messages.
Furthermore, "xor" is a rather trivial transposition cipher (at the bit level),
so regardless of whether or not laws can say whether or not the method
is patentable they do, existing law seems to say that this would not be
patentable. [This would not be the case if bits themselves were non-
obvious, but for that to be the case you'd have to be dealing with
people from a different field of activity.]
If a court has ruled that the patent is valid Nathanael's point that the
court having problems recognizing the facts of the case is indeed a