|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 12:18 AM EDT |
Patents are about non-obvious methods and concepts with no
prior art. Oh, it has to be an invention, not an idea.
And it can not be math.
Useful, is not one of the criteria.
Software is code, the code is the story. Without the story
the software does not work. The mechanics of software, what
actually makes it work, is all about switches, on or off,
that is what it is, what it will always be. Math.
Software is protected by copyright. Not by patent. Those
who want to argue otherwise, simply are not using the
Socratic Method (maybe because they are paid NOT TO go there
and are trained to stay with their story no matter how wrong
that they are).
Truth is Truth.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 12:50 AM EDT |
algorithm is math.
And, historically the method or concept of such is not
anything that should ever be protected.
For ages, the armies of the world used these math
communications related ways to pass secret messages. And,
those that found the messages, used the same methods and
concepts to break the codes. Just because a computer now
can do it quicker with less human effort, does not mean
anything has changed. Old, lots of prior are, and it's
math.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- algorithm - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:22 AM EDT
- algorithm - Authored by: mrisch on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 12:42 PM EDT
- right - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: jonathon on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
>Question: should the "prefix attack" on the MD5 algorithm be
patentable, given its obvious and specific utility? Yes, it's very mathematical,
but it is also quite concrete, clearly novel, and definitely useful.
The "prefix attack" is pure math, and as such, should not be
patentable.
I haven't look at either the source for Flame, nor any of the math around it.
However:
"Novel" is an ambiguous concept.
This specific attack was previously unknown, when used against MD5. That does
not mean that the attack is unknown when used against other algorithms that
offer similar functionality to MD5. Nor does it mean that the attack is unknown
when used against encryption algorithms, or enciphering algorithms.
Come to think of it, I think that Bruce Schneier described at least one prefix
attack back in the 1990s.
Once a method to attack one type of algorithm is known, then it is simply a
matter of time, to learn how to use that method against other, similar
algorithms. The time required might be ten microseconds, or it might be ten
kalpas.
Is it "novel" if it takes one kalpa to learn how to apply and apply
this specific prefix attack on MD5, to say, RIPEMD-320?
"Useful", is equally ambiguous.
If the point is to damage something, then bombs are useful things to detonate.
If the point is to construct something, then detonating bombs on it is not a
useful practice. (Ignoring for now demolishing a building, to construct a new
building in the same space.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
