Re: [Fed-Talk] Not good
Re: [Fed-Talk] Not good
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Not good
- From: "Miller, Timothy J." <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:45:27 +0000
- Thread-topic: [Fed-Talk] Not good
On 12/12/11 7:19 AM, "Blackmon Jerry (Contractor)"
<email@hidden> wrote:
>Isn't it amusing how patents have all of a sudden become EvilĀ because
>opponents are arguing, basically, that they should have the right to copy
>at will, sans compensation, and irrespective of benefit and/or hardship
>to you and your livelihood anything you create because, well, BECAUSE.
Actually, once you dig into the matter you'll find that the problem is the
awarding of both business process patents and software patents for the
bleedingly obvious, often with a totally inadequate or clearly absent
prior art search. My favorite example is when Certicom patented "Given X,
solve for Y".[1]
-- T
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
/* Something about how I don't represent my company in this
message. You know the drill. */
[1] Certicom ECC "point compression," US Patent #6,141,420. ECC works by
manipulating points on a curve defined by the equation y^2 = x^3 + ax +b.
Keys in ECC are coordinates (e.g., [x,y]) but the numbers are very large.
Rather than store both x and y, you can store just x and a flag to tell
you which root to use for y, since for any value of x there are two valid
values of y. Patenting High School algebra was a new one on me.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden