On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 1:57 PM, john_perry_usm <[email protected]> wrote: >> Now translate it to 2009. I don't know how the law is today. My >> question: >> Would it be possible for (just as an example) Wolfram to get patents >> for known algorithms *and* forbid other people to further develop >> these algorithms? Would it be possible to get a patent on the >> manipulate/interact feature, even though it was openly available since >> at least 2002 or even <1999? > > My understanding is that you can't patent prior art. So even if > Wolfram *succeeded* in patenting algorithms that are well-known, any > suits they might file based on said patents would be dismissed the > moment it was shown that they were based on prior art. > > This assumes that the defendant could afford to put up the minimal > defense necessary, and that they would put up the minimal defense > necessary. Such assumptions do not always bear out in practice; some > companies submit immediately and pay out. One example I know is > Commodore Amiga's paying a royalty for the XOR patent. Supposedly, > this was one Commodore eventually folded: they owed on the patent, and > a judge prohibited their importing new products to sell until they > paid. Ironically, the XOR patent was (later) reviewed and revoked. > > You also can't patent "trivial" modifications to prior art. The > modification has to be truly non-obvious. The general consensus among > almost everything I've read, however, is that the US Patent Office has > given up trying to figure out whether software patent applications are > for truly novel modifications, and has decided to let the courts sort > it out. As someone else said, this is the reason for a lot of patent > applications: not to sue others frivolously, but to protect oneself > from frivolous suits. > > IANAL, also IANAH, so I invite correction. > > regards > john perry
Let's get real about this math software patent discussion. Mathematica, Magma, and Maple have no software patents. Matlab, on the other hand... This link gives *97* (!) registered patents by Mathworks (makers of MATLAB): http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=mathworks&FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT (click next to see 51-97). They have patents like: * System and method for distributing system tests in parallel computing environments * Programming language type system with automatic conversions * Function values in computer programming languages having dynamic types and overloading In contrast, Wolfram Research has exactly one patent: "Method and system for generating signaling tone sequences" (see http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22wolfram+research%22.ASNM.&OS=AN/) Maple has no software patents. Let's put Mathworks out of business. -- William -- To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
