Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #2901

Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote:

> On 1/24/2013 3:48 PM, osmium wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/24/2013 12:27 PM, unruh wrote:
>>>> On 2013-01-24, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>>>>>> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>>>>>> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>>>>>> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>>>>>> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the 
>>>>>> value
>>>>>> of the contribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot 
>>>>> copyright
>>>>> a concept.  If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it 
>>>>> at
>>>>> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.
>>>>
>>>> Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
>>>> processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
>>>> And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
>>>> "intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
>>>> patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
>>>> independent definition beyond the definition of those categories.
>>>> It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
>>>> purely mataphoric sense.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> In the United States you can, anyway.  I don't know about the rest of 
>>> the
>>> world.
>>
>> You can what?  Can patent a concept?    He just explained that you 
>> can't!!
>> I know, because I tried it, and our team of crack patent attorneys said 
>> that
>> you can't.  The things you patent must be more tangible than a concept.
>> Like a set of logic drawings, microcode, a program.  I have patents on 
>> both
>> hardware and microcode and one of the best ideas I ever had was, it was
>> explained to me, was *just* a concept.  Sorry, I didn't get the dollar 
>> that
>> was the standard award by a corporation to the inventor.
>>
>
> Many "concepts" have been patented.  The RSA patent is, for instance, an 
> algorithm.  There is no code associated with the patent, and of course, no 
> logic drawings.

But there *are* logic drawings in the RSA patent, I just looked at it.  This 
is an instance of what I mentioned earlier, sometimes you can shake things 
around and convert a concept to a patent.  That's exactly what happened 
here.

> And then there are, of course, the "look and feel" patents, i.e. the 
> unlock slider on Apple I-Phones.  Yes, Apple DOES have a patent on it, and 
> courts have found it is enforceable.  Again, it's a concept - no code or 
> logic diagrams associated with it.

I'm quite sure that Apple has what is called a "design" patent; a real 
patent is a letters patent.  The shape of a Coke bottle is a design patent. 
(Or was.  I don't know if that has been influenced by Disney's work on 
extending Mickey Mouse's lifetime out to infinity.)  The xerography patent 
is over and done with, yet Mickey Mouse is still paying vast rewards.  Some 
of those rewards are distributed to our congresspersons.

> There are many, many others.
>
> I guess they just have better patent attorneys.
>
>>> Many computer algorithms are patented.  For instance, the RSA algorithm 
>>> is
>>> U.S. Patent 4,405,829.  I don't see that as any different than what the 
>>> op
>>> is proposing.
>>
>> My server does not have enough history so I can see what was
>> proposed/asserted/blabbed about, so it is possible the
>> notion/concept/whatever/  could be *converted* into something that could 
>> be
>> patented.

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Martin Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 21:10 -0800
  Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Martin Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 21:15 -0800
  Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-24 07:21 -0500
    Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-24 17:27 +0000
      Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-24 15:18 -0500
        Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2013-01-24 14:48 -0600
          Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-24 16:35 -0500
            Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2013-01-24 16:49 -0600
              Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-24 20:03 -0500
          Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. marty.musatov@gmail.com - 2014-02-09 10:31 -0800

csiph-web