Yes, it is unfortunate but you can't believe everything that is put
out in the media. With patents though, you can always get the full
text and images at the PTO web site:
http://www.uspto.gov/patft/help/status.htm Once there you can
click "Pat Num" to search for patent 5373560 or do a keyword search.
The claims might be broader as you say, but clearly not as broad as a
patent to the numbers per se or even as a patent to any application
of the primes in finite math. I think that from the context, the math
operation involve in the process is clearly a lot more specific. I
thank you for indicating that you will be more careful next time
before indicating that prime numbers have been patented per se.
--- In mathforfun@yahoogroups.com, adh_math <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In mathforfun@yahoogroups.com, "ramsey2879" <ramseykk2@a...>
> wrote:
> > > [adh] At least equally worrisome is the US Patent Office's
> > > [adh] willingness to patent primes. From
> > > [adh] http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html
> > >
> > > [adh] "...R. Schlafly (1994) has obtained U.S. Patent 5373560
> > > [adh] on the following two primes..."
> > >
> > Numbers can not be patented per se. Patent 5,373,560 mentioned
> > in the Mathworld site only patents the use of certain prime
> > numbers for a specific crytographic process. The prime numbers
> > themselves are and remain in public domain. There is no such
> > thing as patenting a number, unless it is a computer program.
> > As much as I agree that the patent office is not equipt to deal
> > with applications to patents for software inventions, people
> > should not spread misinformation about what is being patented.
> >
>
> Two comments:
>
> 1. From the patent text that you (ramsey2879) linked, it seems (to
my
> non-lawyerly understanding:) that Schlafly's patent mentions only
the
> use of specific integers in a specific arithmetic (but perhaps not
> specifically cryptographic?) context. That is, the patent seems (as
> you say) not to cover integers, but only their use in finite field
> arithmetic.
>
> On the other hand:
>
> 2. An article by Simson Garfinkel (citation comments below) begins,
> "Roger Schlafly has just succeeded in doing something no other
> mathematician has ever done: he has patented a number." Garfinkel
also
> quotes Schlafly as saying:
>
> "I'm sure if you just went to someone and said, 'Can you
> patent a prime number?' they would say, 'No, that's
> ridiculous'"...
>
> (which was, in fact, Cino's response! :) and:
>
> "I was kind of interested in pushing the system to see how
> far you could go with allowable claims," explains Schlafly,
> a member of the League for Programming Freedom, an organization
> that opposes software patents. Although Schlafly can now sue
> anybody for using his numbers, he is not worried about people
> infringing on his rights. "When you get to numbers that are so
> big that nobody has used them before, well, there are lots of
> them up there," he says.
>
> These passages suggest that both Garfinkel and Schlafly regard
> Schlafly's patent as a patent on two integers, at least in the
> colloquial sense used in this group. All the same, I'll be more
> careful in the future about claiming that "integers have been
> patented".
>
> The copy of Garfinkel's article that I quoted is here:
>
> http://www.langston.com/Fun_People/1995/1995AYU.html
>
> It seems (a version of) the article appeared in Scientific American
> (July 1995), though I don't have access to the article to check for
> changes of wording.
>
> Regards,
> adh