[e2e] patents on routing algorithms
David P. Reed
dpreed at reed.com
Thu Jan 3 14:26:17 PST 2008
One should be careful that just because we speak English on this list,
we don't all live in England. US patent law is different from that in
We aren't talking about "software patents" when we refer to processes
that involve sending messages between devices - i.e. network protocols -
by the way. The BGP spec is not code for a computer, nor is AODV. In
Algorithm patents are not strictly identical to software patents. An
algorithm is a process. A software program is a recipe that causes a
device to perform a process, but it also typically has "free variables"
so it is a recipe that is not terribly specific. At some degree of
non-specificity it almost certainly doesn't specify anything narrow
enough to be patentable subject matter.
Of course, all these nouns that I am forced to use to describe
abstractions create the illusion that descriptions are equivalent to the
/*"Ceci n'est pas une pipe" (see
or, if you prefer the American Presidentialism: "it all depends on what
is is" (Clinton).
Joe Touch wrote:
> Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>> a letter in this month's CACM reminds us that the Church-Turing Theorem
>> states that algorithms and mathematics are the same - math is unpatentable
>> so ...
> FWIW, math isn't patentable itself, but is potentially patentable when
> applied to a real problem (e.g., general path calculation wouldn't be,
> but IP packet routing would even if it's basically just an application
> of general path calculation).
> See, e.g.,:
More information about the end2end-interest