From Newsgroup: comp.arch

Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes:

If someone did get a patent on something in Knuth, in the
suit, smart people like you will testify that there was prior art, and
the patent will presumably be invalidated.

The patent claim would almost certainly include _in VLSI_. The presence
of a prior non-VLSI embodiment would not be as helpful as you might hope.

But then, I am not a lawyer. Please don't count on me for anything.

Andy Valencia
Home page: https://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: https://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
Fediverse: @vandys@goto.vsta.org
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.arch

Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> schrieb:

Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes:

If someone did get a patent on something in Knuth, in the
suit, smart people like you will testify that there was prior art, and
the patent will presumably be invalidated.

The patent claim would almost certainly include _in VLSI_.i The presence
of a prior non-VLSI embodiment would not be as helpful as you might hope.

That would very likely mean lack of inventive step. Quoting https://www.epo.org/en/legal/case-law/2022/clr_i_d_9_21_10.html :

# If the technical problem that the skilled person has set himself to
# solve brings him to the solution step by step, with each individual
# step being obvious to him in terms of what he has achieved so far
# and what remains for him to do, the solution is obvious to the
# skilled person on the basis of the prior art, even if two or more
# such steps are required, and it does not involve an inventive step.

But then, I am not a lawyer. Please don't count on me for anything.

:-)

I actually find the explanations on the EPO quite clear.
--
This USENET posting was made without artificial intelligence,
artificial impertinence, artificial arrogance, artificial stupidity,
artificial flavorings or artificial colorants.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.arch

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 18:30:54 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:

Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> schrieb:

The patent claim would almost certainly include _in VLSI_.i The
presence of a prior non-VLSI embodiment would not be as helpful as
you might hope.

That would very likely mean lack of inventive step.

If that were true, then software patents would automatically be ruled
out, and we wouldn’t have so much trouble with them. Since adding “on
a computer” to an existing idea would also fall under “lack of
inventive step”, would it not?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.arch

Thomas Koenig wrote:

Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> schrieb:

Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes:

If someone did get a patent on something in Knuth, in the
suit, smart people like you will testify that there was prior art, and
the patent will presumably be invalidated.

The patent claim would almost certainly include _in VLSI_.i The presence
of a prior non-VLSI embodiment would not be as helpful as you might hope.

That would very likely mean lack of inventive step. Quoting https://www.epo.org/en/legal/case-law/2022/clr_i_d_9_21_10.html :

# If the technical problem that the skilled person has set himself to
# solve brings him to the solution step by step, with each individual
# step being obvious to him in terms of what he has achieved so far
# and what remains for him to do, the solution is obvious to the
# skilled person on the basis of the prior art, even if two or more
# such steps are required, and it does not involve an inventive step.

But then, I am not a lawyer. Please don't count on me for anything.

:-)

I actually find the explanations on the EPO quite clear.

I originally posted about the 4 (out of 10) patents that were in fact Knuth-era algorithms compiled to VLSI, and that IMNSHO these obviusly
failed the inventive step requirement.

Another 4 were exceedingly obvious, exactly as described in the
paragraph above: Every step was the most obvious solution.

I don't know this for a fact, but I strongly suspect that the company
that commissioned my patent investigation was the owner of them, and not
the opponent, since I never heard anything at all after getting paid.

Terje
--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.arch

Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> schrieb:

Thomas Koenig wrote:

Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> schrieb:

Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> writes:

If someone did get a patent on something in Knuth, in the
suit, smart people like you will testify that there was prior art, and >>>> the patent will presumably be invalidated.

The patent claim would almost certainly include _in VLSI_.i The presence >>> of a prior non-VLSI embodiment would not be as helpful as you might hope. >>

That would very likely mean lack of inventive step. Quoting
https://www.epo.org/en/legal/case-law/2022/clr_i_d_9_21_10.html :

# If the technical problem that the skilled person has set himself to
# solve brings him to the solution step by step, with each individual
# step being obvious to him in terms of what he has achieved so far
# and what remains for him to do, the solution is obvious to the
# skilled person on the basis of the prior art, even if two or more
# such steps are required, and it does not involve an inventive step.

But then, I am not a lawyer. Please don't count on me for anything.

:-)

I actually find the explanations on the EPO quite clear.

I originally posted about the 4 (out of 10) patents that were in fact Knuth-era algorithms compiled to VLSI, and that IMNSHO these obviusly
failed the inventive step requirement.

Another 4 were exceedingly obvious, exactly as described in the
paragraph above: Every step was the most obvious solution.

One problem with "inventive step" is the objectivity.

With Knuth, there is no question of the algorithms having fallen
into disuse and being little-known (which can also have an effect
on the inventive step).

I don't know this for a fact, but I strongly suspect that the company
that commissioned my patent investigation was the owner of them, and not
the opponent, since I never heard anything at all after getting paid.

If you still have the application numbers associated with these
patents, you can look them up at register.epo.org and read all
documents regarding a patent application. It's often a lot to read,
but you could find out if your expert opinion was ever filed :-)
--
This USENET posting was made without artificial intelligence,
artificial impertinence, artificial arrogance, artificial stupidity,
artificial flavorings or artificial colorants.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.arch

On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 10:52:03 +0000, Terje Mathisen wrote:

Thomas Koenig wrote:

Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> schrieb:

----------------

I actually find the explanations on the EPO quite clear.

I originally posted about the 4 (out of 10) patents that were in fact Knuth-era algorithms compiled to VLSI, and that IMNSHO these obviusly
failed the inventive step requirement.

As long as the claims are towards the way the Knuth algorithms
were compiled into VLSI, or on what had to be invented to
compile Knuth algorithms into VLSI, the patents are valid.

Claims pertaining to the algorithms themselves are not
(as these belong to Knuth).

Another 4 were exceedingly obvious, exactly as described in the
paragraph above: Every step was the most obvious solution.

Sometimes the step is obvious, the the bit patterns chosen to
encode that step are either not obvious or multidimensional;
in which case, the claims should be restricted to how that
step (i.e., the encoding) was derived.

I don't know this for a fact, but I strongly suspect that the company
that commissioned my patent investigation was the owner of them, and not
the opponent, since I never heard anything at all after getting paid.

Terje

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2