1*39edc4a9SbosticFrom: James A. Woods <jaw@eos.arc.nasa.gov> 2*39edc4a9Sbostic 3*39edc4a9Sbostic>From vn Fri Dec 2 18:05:27 1988 4*39edc4a9SbosticSubject: Re: Looking for C source for RSA 5*39edc4a9SbosticNewsgroups: sci.crypt 6*39edc4a9Sbostic 7*39edc4a9Sbostic# Illegitimi noncarborundum 8*39edc4a9Sbostic 9*39edc4a9SbosticPatents are a tar pit. 10*39edc4a9Sbostic 11*39edc4a9SbosticA good case can be made that most are just a license to sue, and nothing 12*39edc4a9Sbosticis illegal until a patent is upheld in court. 13*39edc4a9Sbostic 14*39edc4a9SbosticFor example, if you receive netnews by means other than 'nntp', 15*39edc4a9Sbosticthese very words are being modulated by 'compress', 16*39edc4a9Sbostica variation on the patented Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithm. 17*39edc4a9Sbostic 18*39edc4a9SbosticOriginal Ziv-Lempel is patent number 4,464,650, and the more powerful 19*39edc4a9SbosticLZW method is #4,558,302. Yet despite any similarities between 'compress' 20*39edc4a9Sbosticand LZW (the public-domain 'compress' code was designed and given to the 21*39edc4a9Sbosticworld before the ink on the Welch patent was dry), no attorneys from Sperry 22*39edc4a9Sbostic(the assignee) have asked you to unplug your Usenet connection. 23*39edc4a9Sbostic 24*39edc4a9SbosticWhy? I can't speak for them, but it is possible the claims are too broad, 25*39edc4a9Sbosticor, just as bad, not broad enough. ('compress' does things not mentioned 26*39edc4a9Sbosticin the Welch patent.) Maybe they realize that they can commercialize 27*39edc4a9SbosticLZW better by selling hardware implementations rather than by licensing 28*39edc4a9Sbosticsoftware. Again, the LZW software delineated in the patent is *not* 29*39edc4a9Sbosticthe same as that of 'compress'. 30*39edc4a9Sbostic 31*39edc4a9SbosticAt any rate, court-tested software patents are a different animal; 32*39edc4a9Sbosticcorporate patents in a portfolio are usually traded like baseball cards 33*39edc4a9Sbosticto shut out small fry rather than actually be defended before 34*39edc4a9Sbosticnon-technical juries. Perhaps RSA will undergo this test successfully, 35*39edc4a9Sbosticalthough the grant to "exclude others from making, using, or selling" 36*39edc4a9Sbosticthe invention would then only apply to the U.S. (witness the 37*39edc4a9SbosticGenentech patent of the TPA molecule in the U.S. but struck down 38*39edc4a9Sbosticin Great Britain as too broad.) 39*39edc4a9Sbostic 40*39edc4a9SbosticThe concept is still exotic for those who learned in school the rule of thumb 41*39edc4a9Sbosticthat one may patent "apparatus" but not an "idea". 42*39edc4a9SbosticApparently this all changed in Diamond v. Diehr (1981) when the U. S. Supreme 43*39edc4a9SbosticCourt reversed itself. 44*39edc4a9Sbostic 45*39edc4a9SbosticScholars should consult the excellent article in the Washington and Lee 46*39edc4a9SbosticLaw Review (fall 1984, vol. 41, no. 4) by Anthony and Colwell for a 47*39edc4a9Sbosticcomprehensive survey of an area which will remain murky for some time. 48*39edc4a9Sbostic 49*39edc4a9SbosticUntil the dust clears, how you approach ideas which are patented depends 50*39edc4a9Sbosticon how paranoid you are of a legal onslaught. Arbitrary? Yes. But 51*39edc4a9Sbosticthe patent bar the the CCPA (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals) 52*39edc4a9Sbosticthanks you for any uncertainty as they, at least, stand to gain 53*39edc4a9Sbosticfrom any trouble. 54*39edc4a9Sbostic 55*39edc4a9Sbostic=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 56*39edc4a9SbosticFrom: James A. Woods <jaw@eos.arc.nasa.gov> 57*39edc4a9SbosticSubject: Re: Looking for C source for RSA (actually 'compress' patents) 58*39edc4a9Sbostic 59*39edc4a9Sbostic In article <2042@eos.UUCP> you write: 60*39edc4a9Sbostic >The concept is still exotic for those who learned in school the rule of thumb 61*39edc4a9Sbostic >that one may patent "apparatus" but not an "idea". 62*39edc4a9Sbostic 63*39edc4a9SbosticA rule of thumb that has never been completely valid, as any chemical 64*39edc4a9Sbosticengineer can tell you. (Chemical processes were among the earliest patents, 65*39edc4a9Sbosticas I recall.) 66*39edc4a9Sbostic 67*39edc4a9Sbostic ah yes -- i date myself when relaying out-of-date advice from elderly 68*39edc4a9Sbostic attorneys who don't even specialize in patents. one other interesting 69*39edc4a9Sbostic class of patents include the output of optical lens design programs, 70*39edc4a9Sbostic which yield formulae which can then fairly directly can be molded 71*39edc4a9Sbostic into glass. although there are restrictions on patenting equations, 72*39edc4a9Sbostic the "embedded systems" seem to fly past the legal gauntlets. 73*39edc4a9Sbostic 74*39edc4a9Sbostic anyway, i'm still learning about intellectual property law after 75*39edc4a9Sbostic several conversations from a unisys (nee sperry) lawyer re 'compress'. 76*39edc4a9Sbostic 77*39edc4a9Sbostic it's more complicated than this, but they're letting (oral 78*39edc4a9Sbostic communication only) software versions of 'compress' slide 79*39edc4a9Sbostic as far as licensing fees go. this includes 'arc', 'stuffit', 80*39edc4a9Sbostic and other commercial wrappers for 'compress'. yet they are 81*39edc4a9Sbostic signing up licensees for hardware chips. hewlett-packard 82*39edc4a9Sbostic supposedly has an active vlsi project, and unisys has 83*39edc4a9Sbostic board-level lzw-based tape controllers. (to build lzw into 84*39edc4a9Sbostic a disk controller would be strange, as you'd have to build 85*39edc4a9Sbostic in a filesystem too!) 86*39edc4a9Sbostic 87*39edc4a9Sbostic it's byzantine 88*39edc4a9Sbostic that unisys is in a tiff with hp regarding the patents, 89*39edc4a9Sbostic after discovering some sort of "compress" button on some 90*39edc4a9Sbostic hp terminal product. why? well, professor abraham lempel jumped 91*39edc4a9Sbostic from being department chairman of computer science at technion in 92*39edc4a9Sbostic israel to sperry (where he got the first patent), but then to work 93*39edc4a9Sbostic at hewlett-packard on sabbatical. the second welch patent 94*39edc4a9Sbostic is only weakly derivative of the first, so they want chip 95*39edc4a9Sbostic licenses and hp relented. however, everyone agrees something 96*39edc4a9Sbostic like the current unix implementation is the way to go with 97*39edc4a9Sbostic software, so hp (and ucb) long ago asked spencer thomas and i to sign 98*39edc4a9Sbostic off on copyright permission (although they didn't need to, it being pd). 99*39edc4a9Sbostic lempel, hp, and unisys grumbles they can't make money off the 100*39edc4a9Sbostic software since a good free implementation (not the best -- 101*39edc4a9Sbostic i have more ideas!) escaped via usenet. (lempel's own pascal 102*39edc4a9Sbostic code was apparently horribly slow.) 103*39edc4a9Sbostic i don't follow the ibm 'arc' legal bickering; my impression 104*39edc4a9Sbostic is that the pc folks are making money off the archiver/wrapper 105*39edc4a9Sbostic look/feel of the thing [if ms-dos can be said to have a look and feel]. 106*39edc4a9Sbostic 107*39edc4a9Sbostic now where is telebit with the compress firmware? in a limbo 108*39edc4a9Sbostic netherworld, probably, with sperry still welcoming outfits 109*39edc4a9Sbostic to sign patent licenses, a common tactic to bring other small fry 110*39edc4a9Sbostic into the fold. the guy who crammed 12-bit compess into the modem 111*39edc4a9Sbostic there left. also what is transpiring with 'compress' and sys 5 rel 4? 112*39edc4a9Sbostic beats me, but if sperry got a hold of them on these issues, 113*39edc4a9Sbostic at&t would likely re-implement another algorithm if they 114*39edc4a9Sbostic thought 'compress' infringes. needful to say, i don't think 115*39edc4a9Sbostic it does after the abovementioned legal conversation. 116*39edc4a9Sbostic my own beliefs on whether algorithms should be patentable at all 117*39edc4a9Sbostic change with the weather. if the courts finally nail down 118*39edc4a9Sbostic patent protection for algorithms, academic publication in 119*39edc4a9Sbostic textbooks will be somewhat at odds with the engineering world, 120*39edc4a9Sbostic where the textbook codes will simply be a big tease to get 121*39edc4a9Sbostic money into the patent holder coffers... 122*39edc4a9Sbostic 123*39edc4a9Sbostic oh, if you implement lzw from the patent, you won't get 124*39edc4a9Sbostic good rates because it doesn't mention adaptive table reset, 125*39edc4a9Sbostic lack thereof being *the* serious deficiency of thomas' first version. 126*39edc4a9Sbostic 127*39edc4a9Sbostic now i know that patent law generally protects against independent 128*39edc4a9Sbostic re-invention (like the 'xor' hash function pleasantly mentioned 129*39edc4a9Sbostic in the patent [but not the paper]). 130*39edc4a9Sbostic but the upshot is that if anyone ever wanted to sue us, 131*39edc4a9Sbostic we're partially covered with 132*39edc4a9Sbostic independently-developed twists, plus the fact that some of us work 133*39edc4a9Sbostic in a bureacratic morass (as contractor to a public agency in my case). 134*39edc4a9Sbostic 135*39edc4a9Sbostic quite a mess, huh? i've wanted to tell someone this stuff 136*39edc4a9Sbostic for a long time, for posterity if nothing else. 137*39edc4a9Sbostic 138*39edc4a9Sbosticjames 139*39edc4a9Sbostic 140