Re: SternFUD on RSA

[Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@stud.uni-muenchen.de>]

Eric Cordian wrote:

> > 3. The court didn't uphold a patent on applied math; it upheld a
> > process patent on a crypto system that, among other things, uses
> > applied math. So does almost any engineering design.
> 
> There is a fundamental difference between a physical machine whose
> design required the use of mathematics, and an abstract mathematical
> transformation, which may exist only in an instance of some computer
> program performing a certain task.

I am not taking part in this debate but simply like to point to the
fact that the creteria of what is patentable appear to be undergoing
some change. One illustrative example is that DNA sequences can
currently be patented as far as I know.

M. K. Shen