Re: the public key minefield

smb@research.att.com wrote:
> 
> 	 Do you agree or disagree that:
> 
> 	  'the concept of "anti-gravity" device is not patentable.
> 	   If I could duplicate the effect of your anti-gravity device without
> 	   using any of the same novel mechanisms.  My device would be
> 	   separately patentable.' ?
> 
> 	 If you agree, then how can you patent "public key systems" as a
> 	 concept?
> 
> 	 If you disagree, then we can leave it at that.
> 
> The question is phrased improperly.  Apart from the fact that the
> concept (though not the reality) of anti-gravity is prior art, they
> didn't patent the concept of public-key cryptography.  Rather, they
> patented a class of devices fitting a certain description, with one
> public key cryptosystem as an example and as a separate set of claims.
> To use your analogy, I could patent anti-gravity achieved by interposing
> a screen of some substance opaque to gravity, and patent Cavorite as
> an instance of that class.  If you had another use for Cavorite, you'd
> be home free.  Or if you found a way to neutralize gravity by beaming
> anti-gravitons downward, you'd probably be clear, too.  But if you
> found another substance besides Cavorite that was opaque to gravity --
> yes, that would be covered by my patent.  (Fortunately, H.G. Wells didn't
> patent his literary device.  But I can't think of another science
> fiction author who used that technique....)

  Since the patent seems to cover all public key cryptography (or at
least that's what PKP would like you to believe), the analogy would be
more like patenting a 'device that erradicates effects of
gravitational attraction in a localized area', ie. any anti-gravity
device, when you actually developed only the Cavorite method.  

> It's certainly possible that all possible cryptosystems that achieve the
> same effect would be covered by their description.  That, of course, is
> the mark of a good patent attorney's work -- that he or she managed to
> fashion so broad a claim.  But maybe you can find a better way to do what
> you really want to do, which is trade keys and authenticate messages.
> And if you do -- well, then, the patent system has succeeded in its goals,
> in that the monopoly assigned to someone else has stimulated you to find
> another way to do things, and thus furthered the useful arts and
> sciences.

  Of course, wonderful idea!  Hey, let's patent all irrigating systems
so that people have to think of other ways to make plants grow.  Let's
patent the combustion engine so that people will think of other engine
types.  Let's patent hydro-electric dams to give more incentive to the
controlled fusion researchers.  While we're at it, let's patent
electric devices altogether, so that people can think of other
brilliant ways to make things work.

  While necessity is mother of invention, one must not forget which is
more important: satisfying the necessity or making an invention.  The
goal of patents is to give a researcher a reward for his invention; to
give him the opportunity to make money off it.

-- 
===============================================================
Svetlana Borissova                       svet@nrcbsa.bio.nrc.ca
National Research Council Canada           Home: (613) 747-7820
Laboratory of Biological Sciences (M-54)   Work: (613) 990-7381
Protein Crystallographer                         (613) 991-6981
===============================================================


-- 
===============================================================
Svetlana Borissova                       svet@nrcbsa.bio.nrc.ca
National Research Council Canada           Home: (613) 747-7820
Laboratory of Biological Sciences (M-54)   Work: (613) 990-7381
Protein Crystallographer                         (613) 991-6981
===============================================================