On 7/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think you're missing Arnoud's point. It's not math, it's an > > application of math to the problem domain of message encryption. That > > makes it statutory subject matter for patenting, which math as such is > > not. > > "it" is rather unclear here.
Sorry. "It" = "the patentable subject matter of the invention". > There's several values for "it", one of which includes the math, and the > other which includes the physical process of encrypting messages. The "physical" part is IMHO a Platonic, dualist hang-up. What matters is the application to a practical problem, such as hiding the information content of message A from people who don't have key B. > Furthermore, "xor" is a rather trivial transposition cipher (at the bit > level), > so regardless of whether or not laws can say whether or not the method > is patentable they do, existing law seems to say that this would not be > patentable. [This would not be the case if bits themselves were non- > obvious, but for that to be the case you'd have to be dealing with > people from a different field of activity.] Arnoud's example is of course not patentable -- but on obviousness grounds, not statutory subject matter grounds. It could, however, easily form part of a patentable invention in which the nature of key B is specified -- and if you had a novel way of generating cryptographically strong pseudo-random bitstreams and wanted to patent its cryptographic applications, that's exactly how you would do it. > If a court has ruled that the patent is valid Nathanael's point that the > court having problems recognizing the facts of the case is indeed a > salient point. Judges do not wade into highly technical areas unaccompanied. You might find Alex Kozinski's speech at http://notabug.com/kozinski/claimschief informative. He was the first chief judge of what is now the US Court of Federal Claims, which is the court of first instance for all intellectual property claims against the United States including appeals from administrative decisions of the USPTO. The Federal Circuit, which handles all appeals from the USCFC as well as appeals from district courts involving the validity and scope of patents, has an even more formidable army at its command. Cheers, - Michael (IANAL, TINLA)
