software is currently non-patentable. Not sure the order of when it was/wasnt
but currently is not.
________________________________________
From: cctalk <cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org> on behalf of Paul Koning via
cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 5:09 PM
To: Fred Cisin; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: First Internet message
> On Dec 26, 2019, at 12:23 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> wrote:
>
> And, a Happy Humbug to you, too!
> Fleas Navy Dad and Yo new huevo! spellling?
>
>
>> I^@^Ym not familiar with U.S. law but didn^@^Yt Xerox ^@^Xown^@^Y the
>> patent(s) t$ technology? Again to my knowledge Microsoft and Apple both
>> ^@^Xappropriated^@^Y and/or ^@^Xmisapproriated^@^Y, depending on your
>> point-of-view, this exact technology!
>
> Xerox took the position that ideas like that were not patentable, and could
> not be hoarded for financial gain. It is not clear to me whether that was a
> truly altruistic position, or a tacit acknowledgement that it was resistance
> is futile.
The rules have changed over time. Whether that's by bureaucratic fiat or by
changes to the law I'm not sure.
For example, at one point software wasn't considered patentable, which meant
Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman had to twist themselves into some contortions to
patent the RSA algorithm. It was done by describing it as a device, I think.
Not long afterwards, software patents became possible. The Xerox work may have
been in the earlier period.
Some companies weren't as serious about patents as others; I worked for a
startup around 1997 that didn't care to patent anything, which was really
rather stupid of them. But large companies like Xerox do tend to understand
their options here.
paul
