[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
- From: "John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:44:50 -0600
- References: <AE4FEB771101014D8694547908E81CCC0F6C71@postal.fcci-group.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
Dean Sanchez wrote:
> As for your observation about a laser, I would agree that you could
> patent a specific device for generating of a coherent beam.
This of course is correct.
> However, you should not be able to patent the idea of generating
> a coherent beam or patent a naturally occurring process.
or any "general idea" like "a device of sending voice by electric
signals." Certainly several were working on that idea when Bell did --
one filing mere hours after Bell. Certainly any patentable invention
needs have the specificity to implement. In fact the theory of
semiconductors was understood long before both the vacuum tube and the
ability to create pure enough substrates to manufacture them.
Thus the idea "an order 1 sort scheme" shouldn't be patentable, but any
actually implementable, (and of course original/novel) algorithm should