| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Mathematical algorithmsMathematical algorithmsPosted Nov 3, 2009 4:13 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)In reply to: Mathematical algorithms by man_ls Parent article: Courgette meets a dangerous (Red) Bend Gauss discovered the FFT in 1805, so I think any patent would have expired by now. :-)
(Log in to post comments)
Mathematical algorithms Posted Nov 3, 2009 7:31 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] OTOH I think the prior art would still be valid today :D You might as well want to patent the Eratosthenes sieve to find out prime numbers.
Mathematical algorithms Posted Nov 3, 2009 18:30 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
No, no, no. Did he discover it _on_a_computer_?! If not, then it's clearly novel!
Mathematical algorithms Posted Nov 4, 2009 10:00 UTC (Wed) by Kluge (guest, #2881) [Link]
Actually, according to that link, Gauss didn't publish the algorithm (like so much of what he did), so by my understanding of patent law, it doesn't count as prior art.
Mathematical algorithms Posted Nov 9, 2009 15:48 UTC (Mon) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link] I see your hope and raise you 6,859,816, claim 1 of which appears to read on odd-radix CooleyTukey.Of course if that is what this patent is actually doing, it is patently invalid without a shred of hope at being enforceable. But it does show that the presence of a clear description of your algorithm in the patent database doesn't mean much without a fair amount of costly analysis.
|
|
||||||||||||