Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux

David Feuer (feuer@his.com)
Mon, 21 Dec 1998 00:44:16 -0500

Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > > Are all arithmetic coders patented? This is evil.
> > > Not coders, the concept of arithmetic codING
> >
> > The entire concept of arithmetic coding is patented? It is a very
> > important information theory result! OUCH! When does the patent
> > expire? Aren't there exceptions if release of the patent would be very
> > much in the public interest (don't remember for sure)?
>
> About another 10 years. The "in interest" stuff is only applied to extract
> stuff during wars

Arithmetic codING isn't a device, invention, etc. etc...... How can it
be patented? I am refering to the fact that there are a great many
different algorithms to accomplish arithmetic coding. Are not patents
usually granted to protect a particular _device_ or _method_ of
accomplishing a _particular_ task? For example, one might patent the
{paper clip} for the purpose of {attaching pieces of paper together}.
One might patent the {so-and-so steel manufacturing process} for the
purpose of {making indestructible steel}. It would seem strange if one
could patent _all_ devices for {attaching pieces of paper together}, or
_all_ methods of {making indestructible steel}. An arithmetic coder is
indeed a _method_ for accomplishing the task of {arithmetic coding}. On
the other hand, it seems that {arithmetic coding} is not a method or a
device of any sort. Is there any distinction between patenting the
concept of arithmetic coding and patenting the concept of compression?
Or redundancy coding? Or operating system (I can just imagine microsoft
doing this....). Could not this patent be contested on these grounds?

-- 
David Feuer
feuer@his.com
dfeuer@binx.mbhs.edu
Open Source: Think locally; act globally.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/