On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 08:33:45PM -0500, Steve Sheldon wrote: > > But did the University own the patent? Was the patent filed for at the time > these individals worked for the University? > I don't know, but I would think if the University could prove that research > which had been done there was the basis for this technology, they could > certainly make that case in court. I'm not 100% sure regarding the specifics, but I would guess that the inventors (Rivest, Shamir, Adleman) were working for/at MIT at the time they invented the cryptosystem. It is clear that MIT owned the patent which it licensed exclusively to RSA Labs founded by Rivest et al. I have quite a bit of experience in research & patents, and I can tell you that this is very common practice, particularly at established tech-transfer universities like MIT, Stanfard, UCB, etc. Faculty and research associates are funded directly by the school or by external companies/agencies (like NSF, NIH, DARPA) to research new technologies. If patentable inventions arise from the research, the university pays for the legal expenses to get the patents. If granted, the school, not the inventors, owns the patents. However, there is usually an inventor's policy to reward the inventors should the patents generate royalty streams. To get those royalty streams, the patents get licensed to companies that can create products around the ideas. Quite often, those patents are licensed to startups founded by the inventors of the technology, since they are the ones who best understand the ideas in the first place. > I still cannot figure out who thought it was a good idea to allow for the > patent of mathematical algorithms or business processes. Patents were designed to serve as catalyst and incentive for innovation. A lot of economists agree that the current technology boom and business opportunity in the US are directly related to the free flow of ideas and the ability to capitalize (make money) on those ideas. Unfortunately, current Intellectual Property laws are behind the times, and the PTO is severely understaffed, underqualified and underbudgeted to handle the volume of patent applications. It's a bloody mess. One thing's for sure, as someone else pointed out. IP lawyers are rolling in some big dough. -- Dave Ahn | ahn at vec.wfubmc.edu | Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced. Try to live your life so that when you die, you will rejoice and the world will cry. -1/2 jj^2