because it was the algorthim that was patented, not the bits.
~~~~~~~~~~~
IS this true? I can’t beleive they would issue a patent for an algorithm. That’s like copywrighting the table of contents of a book, but not the chapters or the text. It defies logic. Doesn’t it?
Sure, it seems they will patent just about anything, even business processes. Amazon got a famous patent on their "One-Click Ordering". Basically because of that, no other e-commerce web site can store a customer's billing information and process an order for an item by allowing the customer to only click one button. Without paying Amazon a royalty, that is.
See Wikipedia Software Patent
To quote a section of it:
"Patents cover the underlying methodologies embodied in a given piece of software, or the function that the software is intended to serve, independent of the particular language or code that the software is written in. Copyright prevents the direct copying of some or all of a particular version of a given piece of software, but do not prevent other authors from writing their own embodiments of the underlying methodologies."
And another related Wikipedia link: Software Patents Under US Patent Law
This article has an interesting tidbit:
"The Clinton administration appointed Bruce Lehman as Commissioner of the Patent and Trademark Office in 1994. Unlike his predecessors, Lehman was not a patent lawyer but the chief lobbyist for the Software Publishing Industry. In 1995, the PTO established some broad guidelines for examining and issuing software patents."
But I'm sure the Linux Lefties will blame Bush....
(Note: That doesn't imply that ALL Linux users are lefties, but there does seem to be a group of free software advocates that are also communists.)
Depends on the algorithm, in my mind. A simple binary tree search algorithm wouldn't be reasonable, but complex, non-obvious algorithms like LZW compression or RSA data encryption might have a better case for being patentable.