> Now translate it to 2009. I don't know how the law is today. My > question: > Would it be possible for (just as an example) Wolfram to get patents > for known algorithms *and* forbid other people to further develop > these algorithms? Would it be possible to get a patent on the > manipulate/interact feature, even though it was openly available since > at least 2002 or even <1999?
My understanding is that you can't patent prior art. So even if Wolfram *succeeded* in patenting algorithms that are well-known, any suits they might file based on said patents would be dismissed the moment it was shown that they were based on prior art. This assumes that the defendant could afford to put up the minimal defense necessary, and that they would put up the minimal defense necessary. Such assumptions do not always bear out in practice; some companies submit immediately and pay out. One example I know is Commodore Amiga's paying a royalty for the XOR patent. Supposedly, this was one Commodore eventually folded: they owed on the patent, and a judge prohibited their importing new products to sell until they paid. Ironically, the XOR patent was (later) reviewed and revoked. You also can't patent "trivial" modifications to prior art. The modification has to be truly non-obvious. The general consensus among almost everything I've read, however, is that the US Patent Office has given up trying to figure out whether software patent applications are for truly novel modifications, and has decided to let the courts sort it out. As someone else said, this is the reason for a lot of patent applications: not to sue others frivolously, but to protect oneself from frivolous suits. IANAL, also IANAH, so I invite correction. regards john perry -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
