From: Vin McLellan <vin@shore.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 04:12:07 +0800
To: "Brown, R Ken" <brownrk1@texaco.com>
Subject: RE: Rivest Patent
In-Reply-To: <896C7C3540C3D111AB9F00805FA78CE2013F859D@MSX11002>
Message-ID: <v04003a09b278d1158ded@[198.115.179.81]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I conceed your point.  Nicely reasoned. Thank you.

	_Vin


At 12:12 PM -0500 11/18/98, Brown, R Ken wrote:

>The real point is surely  that a patent for a device invented by someone
>with  a basic knowledge of physics is used to protect the *invention*
>not the *knowledge*. They are not used to prevent anyone else inventing
>another device using the same basic knowledge of physics.
>
>Even if it is perfectly just for the RSA (or any other) patent "taken as
>a whole" to be used to protect  "not merely a disembodied mathematical
>concept but rather a specific machine";  that *doesn''t* mean it is
>neccessarily just to use the patent to protect that "disembodied
>mathematical concept" when it is used in some other "specific machine".
>But software patents *are* used to try to stop people employing the same
>algorithms in other inventions. So, despite  the ingenuous  ruling of
>the court they *are* being used to try to control "disembodied
>mathematical concepts" - in other words ideas.
>
>I have no idea if Watt had a patent on the steam governor. But I bet he
>didn't try to take one out on Boyle's Law.
>
>
>Ken Brown


-----
      Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin@shore.net>
  53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548
                         -- <@><@> --