Re: Wolfe patent on "assert chains"

[Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>]

Daniel Berlin wrote:

> I understand the problem you are facing, but the cited case (and those
> following it) make clear they do not equate "publication" with
> "technical paper", but instead "something available to the public,
> regardless of form".

It still has to be reasonably accessible to one of appropriate
skills. Surely you would not argue that machine code is sufficient,
on the grounds you could reverse engineer it to determine that it
was using somme particular arlgorithm?
> "interpretation of the words 'printed' and 'publication' to mean
> 'probability of dissemination' and 'public accessibility'"
>
> (note that publication is equated with public accessibility, not form
> of document
>
> If you want to argue they are not exactly on point, you could try, but
> given there is absolutely no caselaw i can find coming down that would
> support such a position,  I think you would be hard pressed to find a
> judge who would not roll their eyes at you. :)