Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Good example, from the video. 

That was a stupid video. Giving them names isn't what made it patentable.


That's like saying "Mixing together chemicals to get a new chemical isn't 
patentable. But specifying *what* chemicals you mix together *is* 
patentable! How stupid is that?"

The patentable part wasn't "describing the data and mixing it together." The 
patentable part was "determining compatibility".

Just like "discrete log isn't the patentable part. Using it to do public key 
encryption is the patentable part."  You can still use discrete log for any 
other purpose.

Now, granted, the patent system may or may not be working. But that video is 
disingenuous in describing *what* part of the system is patented.

I have a patent on sending email. It's for sending email in a certain 
pattern for a certain purpose. That doesn't mean sending email is patented.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message