Content deleted Content added
→Design: sai.net Tag: Reverted |
→Legal status: sai.net Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 97:
By themselves, algorithms are not usually patentable. In the United States, a claim consisting solely of simple manipulations of abstract concepts, numbers, or signals does not constitute "processes" (USPTO 2006), so algorithms are not patentable (as in ''[[Gottschalk v. Benson]]''). However practical applications of algorithms are sometimes patentable. For example, in ''[[Diamond v. Diehr]]'', the application of a simple [[feedback]] algorithm to aid in the curing of [[synthetic rubber]] was deemed patentable. The [[Software patent debate|patenting of software]] is controversial,<ref>{{Cite news |date=2013-05-16 |title=The Experts: Does the Patent System Encourage Innovation? |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323582904578487200821421958 |access-date=2017-03-29 |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |issn=0099-9660}}</ref> and there are criticized patents involving algorithms, especially [[data compression]] algorithms, such as [[Unisys]]'s [[Graphics Interchange Format#Unisys and LZW patent enforcement|LZW patent]]. Additionally, some cryptographic algorithms have export restrictions (see [[export of cryptography]]).
Sai.net
== Classification ==
| |||