> On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 08:11:23AM +0100, Alasdair Baird wrote:
> > Thor Lancelot Simon writes:
> > 
> >  > The "clever trick" is ignoring the entire body of statute, regulation, and
> >  > precedent relating to contributory patent infringement.  Quite a trick,
> >  > huh?
> >  > 
> >  > Thor
> > 
> > There is no law here (Britain) to allow the patenting of something as
> > intangible as an algorithm.  Indeed I believe the US is pretty unique
> > in allowing something as daft as that to occur.  If I implement and use
> > the RSA algotithm outside of the US I am in violation of no internationally
> > recognised patent law.
> 
> So what?  I didn't say you were.  Although I don't care to quibble about
> the details, it is a fact that lots of things you wouldn't expect to be
> patentable because they're "algorithms" almost certainly are, not just
> where I live but where you live as well.  The usual trick is describing

Whilst I realise that this is discussion about US patents and US legal
entities, I have it on good authority that not just algorithms but
computer software is EXPLICITLY excluded from patent law in the UK
(actually possibly just England and Wales, but I'm not sure).  (I don't
have the references in front of me to cite, but I can get them if anyone
cares.)  However, there is currently discussion about changing this.

Cheers,

David.