DA> That's why the patent on Matthew Cook's proof of DA> Turing-completeness of Rule 110 seemed so outrageous DA> . . . and which I hope will now be declared null and void. DA> * * * DA> Or maybe it was never patented per se, but Wolfram's asserted DA> proprietary ownership of the fact strikes me as the equivalent of DA> a patent. DA> Is [US Patent 8,692,575] this one: DA> "A family of self-timed, charge-conserving asynchronous logic DA> elements that interact with their nearest neighbors permits design DA> and implementation of circuits that are asynchronous at the bit level. DA> The elements pass information by means of state tokens, rather than DA> voltages. Each cell is self-timed, so no hardware non-local connections DA> are needed. ..." Yes. It appears to be about circuits for implementing cellular automata. It mentions Cook's paper on Rule 110 at the bottom of column 5 but it doesn't seem to assert any coverage of the rule or the proof of its universality. I have looked no deeper than Wikipedia on Matthew Cook and his dispute with Wolfram but I don't see anything patent-like about it. It seems like an ordinary dispute about the ownership of intellectual work. I am inferring that Wolfram supported Cook's research and asserted his right to block publication of the results until they had appeared in Wolfram's own book. Whit