Re: Algorithms to generate permutations

From: BRG (brg_at_nowhere.org)
Date: 08/09/05 

Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 23:58:49 +0100

Terry Ritter wrote:

[snip]
> First of all, one does not have to be a US
> citizen to get a US patent.
>
> Next, many different countries offer patents
> which are valid within their own country.
> Just because somebody in the US comes up
> with something does not mean that somebody
> elsewhere does not already have (or is in
> the process of establishing) rights to it,
> rights local to particular countries.
>
> Last, having entrants give away *their* rights
> does *nothing* to assure that rights will
> be available worldwide. It just amounts to
> a local "quitclaim" which does not address
> world rights at all. So if world rights really
> were an issue, they would need to be addressed
> far more comprehensively than they were. To me,
> that means world rights were a "smoke screen,"
> not an real issue. Indeed, that is how we
> distinguish false issues from real ones.

I don't share your view on this - the issue is real enough for me.

>>Would a purely national US competition have produced an effective result
>>(either for the US itself or more widely)?
>
> I think the "effectiveness" of the result depends
> more on having the best technology, the best
> designs, and a thorough, structured and public
> analysis process. That is much more important
> than patent rights.
>
> The idea that a patented algorithm would have
> been "ineffective" is just an assertion, not a
> known fact. I dispute that speculative outcome.
> I think things would have worked out fine.
> (Also see near the end, below.)

I was asking a question here about a 'US only' competetion, not a
'patent free' competition.

[snip]
>>>In my view, different economic models compete
>>>against each other in the open market, *after*
>>>the design is done. If a profit-based business
>>>of cipher design comes up with the better designs,
>>>that should be acknowledged in any technical
>>>competition. Profit comes later. Not allowing
>>>that was the problem.
>>
>>My view is that the programme would have failed if the profit model had
>>filtered through into the end result though the adoption of an
>>encumbered algorithm.
>
> I think that view is wrong and biased, and
> here is why:
>
> First of all, the market for cryptography is
> not sci.crypt. Ordinary people cannot program
> computers and do not generate their own crypto
> package. They do not even compile a package.
> They instead pay for others to do that.
>
> Most of the wide software market only buys
> crypto in the sense that it is included in a
> larger package, in particular, the OS. That
> maker invests in research, or buys companies
> that have, or even licenses what is needed.
> But even though the users do not see that,
> they do indeed pay for it. The process is
> *not* different because crypto is involved.
>
> The distinction is that everyone gets paid
> except for the crypto designers, and I do
> not think that is accidental.

There are a number of people who _implement_ cryptographic algorithms
without being paid to do this.

Moreover there is a lot of free (Gnu) software in use that contains
cryptography that developers have not been paid for.

[snip]
>>>Obviously, the whole point of the freedom and
>>>democracy that I support is that you can do
>>>anything you want. For example, you can form
>>>a loose association or cabal of like-minded
>>>people to denegate, demean and dismiss those
>>>who not only have investigated and innovated,
>>>but also have jumped through the legal hoops
>>>required to acquire the rights you do not have.
>>>But that does not make your position right or
>>>even logical:
>>
>>I am not in any particular camp or cabal and I am not in the business of
>>denigrating the work of others.
>
> Oddly, since I have spent considerable time, effort
> and cash acquiring fundamental patents in cryptography,
> I do feel that someone who agrees with the denial of
> those rights does in fact denigrate my work.

I am not denigrating your work and I am not denying your right to sell
your cipher algorithms. The fact that I won't implement them is not
going to have _any_ impact on your market.

The fact that many others take the same view does undermine your market
but you are wrong to claim that this is a conspiracy. I take my stance
for reasons that _I_ see as logical, not because I am blindly following
others.

>>>In my view, machines have *always* implemented
>>>"algorithms." In my view, there is nothing
>>>particularly unique about a mechanical machine,
>>>or an electronic machine, or a software machine.
>>>Your cabal and the European governments can try
>>>to obscure the issue, but it cannot go away
>>>because algorithms are the essence of invention
>>>and always has been. To define software as
>>>something different is to try to make a
>>>distinction which must necessarily become so
>>>increasingly fine that it disappears under its
>>>own weight. This is a case where more laws
>>>can only help lawyers, because an underlying
>>>factual distinction simply does not exist.
>>
>>The distinction is arbitrary but the real world is full of examples
>>where a continuum has to be split into discrete and essentially
>>arbitraty partitions for practical purposes.
>
> That observation is fundamentally different
> from the case at hand. Yes, it is often
> hard to distinguish the exact point at which
> something changes into something else. But
> when there *is* no "else," the issue is not
> in the distinguishing, but instead in the idea
> that anything else is there.

I was not thinking of transformations but simply the division of a
continuum into partitions (e.g. 'killing' into 'murder' and
'manslaughter' in the UK)

In any event if you are arguing that the continuum demands the existence
of patent rights, I would argue the opposite.

> In my view, *all* machines depend upon the
> concept of "algorithms." All machines
> implement algorithms. The only reason that
> has not been apparent is that patents were
> put in place long before the specific idea of
> "algorithms" began to be developed in software.
> Accordingly, there is a false assumption that
> the idea could not possibly have existed earlier.
> But it did exist, and was called a "method."
> Method patents have been around, a long, long
> time (probably centuries). And it is well
> known that method claims are often just a
> different way of describing the same
> underlying machine concept.
>
>>As you say, this offers lawyers good business opportunities.
>
> But I think it should be a goal of a society
> under law to have laws and distinctions which
> are sufficiently clear that they do *not*
> constitute a good business opportunity for
> lawyers.

In my view this just doesn't happen in democracies.

They start off well enough but then destroy themselves over time by
breeding an ever increasing army of people who are more interested in
talking about doing rather than actually doing. Over time lawyers and
politicians get to outnumber creators and producers and sooner or later
the society in question sinks into relative obscurity buried under the
weight of the paper it is using to publish its increasingly useless laws.

  Brian Gladman

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Patent Question
    ... Any patent will have little to no effect on chinese infringment. ... A US Patent grants certain OFFENSIVE rights. ... Offensive rights of patents are *way* overrated. ... spend money on patents for DEFENSIVE reasons. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition
    ... Copyright law is focused on the preservation of intellectual property, ... Even though copyright law protects ... is to provide property-like rights protection to ideas and concepts. ... You don't copyright an engine design; you patent it. ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.development)
  • Re: Patent Question
    ... you have no rights unless and until a patent issues. ... you can sue for royalties for infringing devices ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Illegal to do research on cryptography?
    ... Is it illegal to do research and publish results on strong cryptography ... algorithms abroad even though that's my only option because the US Army ... patent and I didn't know in the first place they were patented -- just ... Vincent Granville, Ph.D. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: LMF and abandonned products
    ... Copyright and patent are NOT inherent natural rights, ... artifact established for a particular public purpose. ... Copyright and patent are granted for a limited time, ...
    (comp.os.vms)
Quantcast