Path: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: alfredo@ncs.es (Alfredo Novoa) Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: Is b-tree index patented? Date: 21 Oct 2003 04:51:31 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 65 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.58.0.107 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1066737092 32686 127.0.0.1 (21 Oct 2003 11:51:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:51:32 +0000 (UTC) Xref: newssvr20.news.prodigy.com comp.databases.theory:21834 "Mikito Harakiri" wrote in message news:... > Thanks for the links. Certainly, it's much harder to figure D&McGoveran view > update method from that patent description, than from the articles;-) Yes, but what is curious for me is the fact that they decided to patent the method. BTW I have found this: ------ The most important rule, however, is that an invention will not normally be patentable if: the invention was known to the public before it was "invented" by the individual seeking patent protection; the invention was described in a publication more than one year prior to the filing date; or the invention was used publicly, or offered for sale to the public more than one year prior to the filing date. ---------- http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html The method was publised several years ago :-? > Some bitmap index compression algorithms are patented. The problem is that > if one particular compression method is unavaiable to the competitor as > patented Unavaiable or accessable by paying? >, I guess it's comparatively easy to invent a new one. And it is easy to modify the method. > I'm not sure about software, but algorithms should be patentable. IMO the patentability of software is ridiculous, and algorithms should not be patentable either. There is a lot of popular pressure in Europe in order to avoid the patentability of software and algorithms. I heared about it even in the TV news a few weeks ago. > Why new > algorithm is not an invention? Because algorithms are mathematics and mathematics has nothing inventive in itself. But most software patents are not algorithms. Imagine that Codd had patented the application of logic to the data management field. It would be ridiculous IMO. > On the other hand, how can one verify patent > violation without the access to the source code? With reverse engineering of the application executables, a crazy idea. Regards Alfredo