Re: RAR under linux: any alternative?
On Thursday 15 December 2005 22:15, Mike McCarty wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>>>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html
>>
>> 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.
>
>Mike
Interesting, Mike and thanks, another example of why we need to
overhaul the USTPO. Its busted. But then WE knew that already.
--
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should use this
address: <gene.heskett@verizononline.net> 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.
Reply to: