Slashdot Mirror
Canada Courts, Patent Office Warns Against Trying To Patent Mathematics
davecb writes "The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) has recently published two notices for patent examiners relating to patent interpretation, and in particular computer-related/business method type patents saying: 'for example, what appears on its face to be a claim for an "art" or a "process" may, on a proper construction, be a claim for a mathematical formula and therefore not patentable subject matter.'"
...translators and software won't be patentable!
all they can aspire to is the Fields medal, but then again they even refuse that or bigger prizes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman
but you can patent the application in a specific area to solve a specific problem. Nothing new there.
Isn't code already math? Any algorithm can be implemented on a Turing machine, which is a mathematical construct.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Sure it is, but judges still need to be convinced
metageek
My guaranteed payday based on my patented use of the letter 'x' in equations suddenly appears in doubt.
Life needs more saving throws.
Pythagoras would have been very rich if he had just thought to patent his theorem. Imagine having to pay royalties every time you calculate the hypothenuse of a triangle.
Here's why: Lawyers being what they are, will bicker over what exactly a mathematical formula is.
I will never forget an incident where in the recent Oracle vs Google case, Oracle's side tried to change the facts about a memory reference being symbolic or otherwise. Mind you, this was an expert! It was pathetic!
Subsequently, the court shot down Oracle's position with this piece.
The foregoing is sufficient but it is worth adding that Oracle's infringement case was presented through Dr. Mitchell. A reasonable jury could have found his many "mistakes" in his report merely to be convenient alterations to fix truthful admissions earlier made before he realized the import of his admissions. For this reason, a reasonable jury could have rejected every word of his testimony.
Oracle lost the case - For now.
should genes be patentable, but it seems that we maybe have lost that one (sadly)
In a little while, when physicists have figured out the laws of the universe, everything might be mathematics... (not just symbolic stuff like computer programs)
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
AFAIC all patents and copyright should be abolished on a general principle that government has no authority to protect or promote any business (or private protection scheme of any ideas or implementations) in the first place and all of a sudden the problem disappears. You want protection? It's your private business, use trade secrets and contracts.
It should be noticed that the decision in the story does not do that. You can patent your business idea or implementation, but it should be an idea or implementation that is not a pure math. So you can't patent a theorem on faster signal transformation but probably can patent business idea on using your faster formula to achieve a specific result.
You can't handle the truth.
I don't understand the statement about Oracle : Oracle
Invent something nee, instead of juist looking for patents...
printf("Hello World!\n");
Convince me where the math is in that.
should genes be patentable, but it seems that we maybe have lost that one (sadly)
Who lost this. You have a frog in your pocket. Living natural genes being patentable hasn't been decided. Created works using genes has.
It really is simple. Software is mathematics because all software can be expressed as mathematical formulas, therefore it can't be patented.
As a clarification and reminder for the patent examiners, this is a good thing. However, the USPTO has guidelines and rules as well, with odd little things like "Prior art" and descriptions of things that should not be patentable.
However, there is also a policy (not sure if it is written, or just written about) that if the patent examiner cannot understand the patent application but cannot specifically see that it definitely contravenes any of the guidelines for things that should not be patentable, the patent should be granted and then the court system should be used to test the validity of the patent.
You are declared a function call with parameter. It is math.
|printf("Hello World!\n");
|Convince me where the math is in that.
Sorry, which part of that do you think should be patentable?
printf("Hello World!\n");
Convince me where the math is in that.
Prove that it is not math. Start by showing that it is not represented by 1s and 0s at the hardware level. Then prove that it is not all NAND gates that do the manipulating and that all the hardware operations are not mathematical. Bonus: Prove that add, subtract, divide, multiply, mov are not mathematical functions.
... whatever
printf("Hello World!\n");
Convince me where the math is in that.
Can a computer interpret it? If it can, then it's maths, because all a computer can do is manipulate symbols, which is maths. If, of course, it can't be interpreted by a computer, it may not be maths.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Except for the "Hello World!\n" (which is data, not code), it's nothing but math. Not any different than any other mathematical function, which is why it's in the form of one - f(x). The language it's written in even calls it a "function."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Look at the exe file with a hex editor. All you will see is numbers.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Good, they shouldn't be.
Many things patentable, shouldn't be, many things unpatentable shouldn't be, but are.
Patents should expire 4 years after acceptance to promote innovation. If you haven't dug gold out of it in 4 years, it's time to shit or get off the pot. There's a world out there who can innovate. What have you done for us today?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Just have a look at the printf source code (actually vfprintf). If you don't understand it, that'll remind you your old maths classes ..
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
But here we have several problems.
1) Where's the invention there?
2) Where's the process in there?
Now, what do you think is going to happen when you compile then run that code? Do you think there's a host of pixel pixies who will read that message "Hello World!" and typeset it on your screen for you?
Or do you think that the result will be the addition or subtraction to an array that is then sent as a signal over your VDU cable to change luminescence or blocking of your monitor's active elements?
Now, do you think addition and/or subtraction are maths or not?
This. GP, if you feel your little line is not math.. learn some assembly. EVERYTHING.. and I mean everything.. on a computer is math. Like the parent said.. prove it's not.
The 'Hello World' is still math.. play with a little assembly, and you learn that EVERYTHING with a computer is math, in ASCII characters.
No. A number is not math. Manipulation of that number is.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
All that I would have to do is convince you that an algorithm is a mathematical construct. How it is used is irrelevant.
Well, I HATE this software argument about patents as, to be honest, EVERYTHING can be described as mathematics. From mechanical systems to genetic code, from electrical designs to source code. You can name anything: I can write it down either as mathematical model using a set of formulas or using a array of numbers. If mechanical designs and electronic systems can be patented so can be software.
The problem with the current patent system, in particular in the US, is that it is a lousy version of an idea from the 19th century. It doesn't take in consideration how fast technology improves, barely acknowledges the immense variety of new tech fields and how their are interconnected and it's filled with abused double standards.
How to solve this problem this problem? Modernize it and make it more strict(only absolutely novel tech for a much more limited time with very specific implementations). Is that perfect? NO. But a business is much more than just inventing stuff; use marketing, funding, quality, support and be secretive to overcome the copycats.
And how do you think that number ended up on your screen?
Run it on a mobile phone and it becomes patentable...
I'm against patients in general, except for big billion dollar medical advancements I don't really see the point. Why can't we just share knowledge, intellect and wisdom and not slap each other with law suits.
You're having a hard time with concepts. Math puts the words on the screen, but that doesn't make the words themselves "math." I can measure a distance and an angle and use math (trigonometry) to determine the height of a tree. That doesn't make the height of a tree "math."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: all math, sufficiently abstracted and obfuscated, is indistinguishable from art.
The 19th century called and wants its algorithm back.
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: all math, sufficiently abstracted and obfuscated, is indistinguishable from art.
So, what you're saying is.. Art is math?
No, it doesn't. But if you were to attempt to display it on a screen, you would have to compute everything that goes with displaying it. So, this really goes back to, everything with a computer is math. You HAVE to manipulate the strings and values to make them display on a screen, which is math.
I agree. 'Hello World!' is not math, but the process to display it on a computer screen is. So, that would mean that all computer functions, from displaying text, or anything more complex, is all MATH..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry-Howard_isomorphism
It's isomorphic to printf("You've missed the point\n");
Deep underneath the hood... it might very well be that all art is math. Shhh! Don't repeat such heresy.
well for one thing, printf cannot be described by one formula.
When he says, "its not math" he means the meaning of the line of code does not represent any mathematical objects.
Meh. If you agreed with that, then why did you first argue it's not true? Just admit that you didn't think it through, were wrong, and move on.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Any physical machine can be simulated on a computer, which includes a Turing machine. That doesn't mean the idea is math. In other words, the fact that X can be implemented on a computer does not imply that X is mathematics.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
What an inane argurment. The claim is "Code is math". Therefore the onis is on the person making the claim to prove a simple printf command is a mathematical formula or equation.
2 + 2 = 5 ©
Nobody says the IP has to be correct.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
But text can be copyrighted.
The first person to print out the full value of Pi can copyright it....
Look at the assembly code. You'll see its maths. Code can be copyrighted but should never be patentable.
it is math If you know What it takes to print that
Any algorithm can be implemented on a Turing machine, which is a mathematical construct.
You might want to implement it in lambda calculus instead, it's more abstract and probably feels more math-y, even to the judges.
Ezekiel 23:20
Well, the string literal represents a sequence of numbers, and the printf part a mapping (as in, a mathematical function) of that sequence of numbers to a temporal sequence of I/O actions. The I/O actions are perhaps the only part that doesn't have a purely mathematical interpretation.
Ezekiel 23:20
"Simulated," yes, as in imitating, not duplicating. You can simulate a wheel, but that doesn't mean you've violated the wheel patent. And, contrary to what's implied by your claim, that simulation is math, even if the wheel itself isn't. Conversely, taking something physical and simulating it on a computer shouldn't make it subject to patent (the common "x, but on a computer" patents).
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Don't worry, your secret is safe with me.. besides, no one listens to me anyway on these matters!!
That's like saying that a chair is just a representation of geometrical shapes which can be expressed as mathematical formulas.
Everything is math, therefore everything must not be patentable.
Your thoughts are nothing more than a complex orchestration of electrochemical stimuli, akin to a computer. Everything from your dreams to the stars can be expressed using math, as it's a form of communication.
To me, the line is drawn wherever it is most convenient and fair. 1 line can be drawn in front of software and say, software can't be patentable... I'd rather use a different line, and raise the bar at what is considered novel or common sense. There's no reason why 50 different variations of a tripod that can spray water should be patentable just because they change the color or the medium they spray. I tripod is common sense, the click of a button is common sense. Using hearing, sight, touch, taste and smell to interact with anything is common sense.
Careful. Back when I was in college, NO computer programs could be patented under exactly that logic. The whole argument about doing the same as some old business process "on a computer" would have made it NOT patentable, rather than "new" as is currently done. So when the group I worked with came up with a major new wrinkle in a manufacturing process that involved mostly software, the lawyers decided it was unpatentable and we didn't get any filing bonus - unlike the mechanical folks who got a patent and bonuses for bending a piece of metal a few extra degrees.
I've been conflicted on the issue of software patents my whole career because of my experiences. On the one hand, they are MUCH overused and abused, and stifle the spread of good practices across the industry. On the other, people should get recognition for original creative work.
Why do you argue that I'm wrong?
All that line is, is a series of 1's and 0's, in a combination of bits, bytes, nibbles, and DWords.. so, tell me how it doesn't end up as a mathematical function?
In another post on this subject.. I provided an XKCD reference... Take a look at it. http://xkcd.com/435/... so on that basis.. how is ANYTHING, not math?
Prove that physical reality is not math. Start by showing that it is not represented by 1s and 0s at the lowest level.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
A computer can interpret Shakespeare, so therefore literature is math. No, I don't think that's a sound argument.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
The problem with that logic is that with sufficient effort you could show that any problem can be reduced to math. The question is not can something be reduced to math, but is it math itself. For example: geometry is a mathematical field, but not everything created using geometry is math. Another example: every video on Youtube. Every one of them is reduced to mathematics before being displayed (and quite often when it is made), but arguing that the video itself is math or a mathematical algorithm is patently ridiculous.
Oh, and also the burden of proof isn't on him to prove the statement isn't math, it's on people who claim it is math to prove it is.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
That's not an algorithm.
(That is not to say that outputting a string cannot be expressed in lambda-calculus by encoding it in a suitable way.)
That's like saying that a chair is just a representation of geometrical shapes which can be expressed as mathematical formulas.
Yes, your point being? As you seem to understand yourself, anything in our known universe can be expressed by math. Our math breaks down to a certain degree when we enter the realm of quantum mechanics, or rather determinism breaks down, math describes this fine enough.
To me, the line is drawn wherever it is most convenient and fair.
Back on topic though, you're right that we have to draw the line somewhere; I'd rather draw the line at zero. Nothing can be patented, and no business idea deserves any kind of special protection. If your idea cannot survive in the free market on merit alone it has no place in the market at all.
... whatever
Code is not patentable. Algorithms are patentable.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
The problem with that logic is that with sufficient effort you could show that any problem can be reduced to math. The question is not can something be reduced to math, but is it math itself. For example: geometry is a mathematical field, but not everything created using geometry is math. Another example: every video on Youtube. Every one of them is reduced to mathematics before being displayed (and quite often when it is made), but arguing that the video itself is math or a mathematical algorithm is patently ridiculous.
You are making arbitrary distinctions based on abstractions. Videos on Youtube are pure math and that 99.9% (yes, I pulled that stat out of my ass) of users don't know the simplest algorithms behind it does not make it any less math. The real problem here is that we are forced to make distinctions in the first place, because patent law requires us to. The writers of the law didn't seem to know these simple facts, and now we're stuck with a piece of shit legislation that is being pushed on the rest of the world as truth. Math is not patentable, but abstractions based on math are. Fuck that, let's just go back to nothing being patentable and be done with. Survive in the free market on merit alone, or not at all.
Oh, and also the burden of proof isn't on him to prove the statement isn't math, it's on people who claim it is math to prove it is.
We are not filing a lawsuit and this is not a court room. The poster i replied to was being lazy so I reversed his argument to highlight his fallacy. If he had taken more than 2 seconds thinking about it, this whole subthread would not exist, and the world would be a better place.
... whatever
It could be viewed as a set of values with a mapping to another set with a binary representation.
No, the point is that anyone who has ever touched the insides of a computer knows that everything is a collection of ones and zero that are manipulated by mathematical functions. As a matter of fact, the definition of a computer is the repetitive manipulation of numbers via math. As a result, anyone who argues that something running on a computer is not broken down into math has the burden of proof.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Even the I/O actions have a purely mathematical interpretation, check out Temporal Logic which goes back many decades to Leslie Lamport and earlier groundwork.
I/O is just a mathematical sequence of states in a simple temporal space. An implementation is typically more restricted than the mathematical space, but you can trivially put the restrictions into the maths too if you want. Content-protecting lawyers would be building a skyscraper on sand if they try to exclude I/O from mathematics and algorithms.
You can't patent Shakespeare either. Do not confuse patents with copyright.
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
Videos on Youtube are pure math
Just re-read that will you. "A video is pure math"... It is not art, not a form of expression between humans, not humorous or sad or cheesy. It is "pure math".
Ok. Got it. Any other pronouncements you want to make?
Actually no, we're not in a court room. Wanting proof that a computer is a mathematical construction as being a pure fuckwit and deserves ridicule. The entire basis of computers is mathematical, any fucking textbook on this subject will deal with this very fucking fact in the first 20 pages (if it's any good).
... whatever
But why would a person who wants to get his algorithm patented ever want to do that?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So you think that just because it is represented by a collection of zeroes and ones which are manipulated by mathematical functions, it is maths?
I guess you also think my point consists of letters.
The inanity is, that supposedly educated people - IT people who make a living with computers - people who have been exposed to computer SCIENCE - can pretend that programs are anything other than complex mathematical formula.
WTF does "compute" mean, anyway? Computing, by definition, is the manipulation of numbers.
You've found a new way to manipulate numbers? Copyright to your little heart's content. File your patent paperwork here in the circular file.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You're missing the point: mathematical models of programming don't deal with real-world interactions. As soon as a program does some IO, it can be argued that it is part of a machine. That's why patenting computer programs needs to be banned separately.
Math is the language of the Universe, so EVERYTHING is math, beginning at the most fundamental level - the planck constants. If you could manipulate the world on the planck level, what you'd essentially be doing is lots of complicated math: Move this particle X planck length, raise the temperature X planck temperature, this will produce X planck matter or X planck energy or whatever. All math, all can be put in an equation, and we (as in humanity, or theoretical physicists to be exact) are currently looking for that very equation - String Theory is one candidate for example.
Does this make ALL patents invalid?
More accurately, men and women can assign values to Shakespeare's works, enter those values into a computer, then manipulate those values in any manner they so wish.
The computer is not interpreting Shakespeare. The computer is manipulating mathematical equations that people interpret as Shakespeare.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Who said that art and math are mutually exclusive, and why would you believe a person who said that? What part of playing back a video on Youtube do you think is not mathematics at work? Elaborate on your point.
... whatever
Mathematics at work and using math is not the same as mathematics. Just like the fact that I can describe said video in English doesn't mean it is English.
Isn't code already math? Any algorithm can be implemented on a Turing machine, which is a mathematical construct.
Any invention is made up of a large number of atoms, which interact with each other according to the laws of quantum physics. Since quantum physics is not patentable, nothing is patentable. Right?
And actually, not every algorithm _can_ be implemented on a Turing machine for two reasons: 1. A Turing machine running a program can only either stop in a zero state, stop in a one state, or run forever. That's not really very useful. 2. A Turing machine can not be implemented for most algorithms because the Turing program would be so huge that it couldn't be represented with all the atoms in the world.
No, the point is that anyone who has ever touched the insides of a computer knows that everything is a collection of ones and zero that are manipulated by mathematical functions.
Nonsense. There are no mathematical functions in my Mac. There are lots of voltages and currents and semiconductors, but not a single mathematical function.
Back on topic though, you're right that we have to draw the line somewhere; I'd rather draw the line at zero. Nothing can be patented, and no business idea deserves any kind of special protection. If your idea cannot survive in the free market on merit alone it has no place in the market at all.
Oh, I am sure my Great Idea will survive in the market just fine, however it won't benefit my company at all. Immediately after putting it on market, bigger and richer competition will just copy it, set up mass production and use huge advertising campaign to grab all sales. In this case why should I even bother trying to innovate?
Who said that art and math are mutually exclusive, and why would you believe a person who said that? What part of playing back a video on Youtube do you think is not mathematics at work? Elaborate on your point.
That's kind of the point of patent\copyright laws; Math: not patentable, Art: is patentable.
Can a computer interpret it? If it can, then it's maths, because all a computer can do is manipulate symbols [caltech.edu], which is maths. If, of course, it can't be interpreted by a computer, it may not be maths.
Circular argument, and therefore not acceptable. You are saying all software is maths, therefore all software is maths. I'm saying computers are not maths, therefore the printf call isn't maths. Just as valid as your argument (which means not at all).
The problem is that you can easily make a claim "this is maths", but you will find it impossible to show the actual maths. You say "it is maths". I say "if it is maths, then _show_ me the maths. " If you can't show me the maths, then either it isn't maths, or it doesn't matter because maths that you can't show me doesn't exist.
Or you could do cat program.exe > /dev/dsp . I just proved that program in is fact collection of sounds.
I would first argue the assumed 'if-else' clauses are mathematical in nature since those are really the only parts of the language that most wouldn't consider mathematical.
Some proof, using 32 bit integers, but keep in mind this can be done with any integer or decimal.
if (a > 31) & 1
c = resultA * condition + resultB * (1 - condition)
Conditionals with AND and OR comparers are a little bit trickier, but the above math serves as the basis for constructing them. You can also replace the formula for 'condition' with arithmetic operators but that would take a whole lot more text to demonstrate and I intended to keep this kind of short.
The Bennett mechanism is a highly overconstrained "mobile spatial four-bar linkage." (Yeah, yeah, the Bennett mechanism is 100 year old prior art, but I am saying some new discovery yet to be made of a linkage.) What makes something a Bennett mechanism is a precise relationship between the link lengths and the link "twist angles." So a Bennett mechanism is not the materials nor whether you use roller or journal bearings nor the thickness and shape of the links. A Bennett mechanism is essentially a mathematical relationship.
That the Bennett mechanism is mobile instead of a rigid "tensegrity structure" has to do with some deep mathematical relationships that may yet yield to a simple proof.
Everything on a computer is NOT math. Everything on a computer is representable as math.
Fixed that for you.
That program amounts to:
S and O are ordered sets of elements from the ASCII set.
set S = {"H","e","l","l","o"," ","W","o","r","l","d","!","\n"}
set O = {}
let O = O U S
That's like saying that a chair is just a representation of geometrical shapes which can be expressed as mathematical formulas.
Yes, your point being? ....
Back on topic though, you're right that we have to draw the line somewhere; I'd rather draw the line at zero...
That was the point. You wanting to draw the line at 0 is what I had extrapolated from the math argument. It'll work just as well as the law did during the wild west days. Only the people with the biggest wallets will win instead of the people with guns.
No, the point is that anyone who has ever touched the insides of a computer knows that everything is a collection of ones and zero that are manipulated by mathematical functions.
I guess you also think my point consists of letters.
No, I think your point consists of the top of your head.
If you accept the Church-Turing Thesis is true, then Groklaw has the best explanation why anything run through a Turing Machine is just math, and therefore not patentable.
Well, I HATE this software argument about patents as, to be honest, EVERYTHING can be described as mathematics.
It's really just an argument used by lazy thinkers. They don't want software patents (with good reasons, because there is a huge number of software patents that are in my opinion obvious), they read that maths is not patentable, so they shout "software is maths, so it is not patentable". There are a few huge problems with it:
1. You can of course claim that all software is maths, and call everyone stupid who doesn't believe it, but that doesn't make it true. If someone says "it is a mathematical function", I say "show me the function". Which never happens.
2. Mathematical formulas cannot be patented because that would forever (or several years) completely block the use of that function for anything. However, even if a program is a mathematical function, the slightest change to that program creates a very much different mathematical function.
3. Here's the big one, probably a bit hard to understand: When laws are created, the law makers want to achieve some effect, and pick the words for the law that seem best to achieve that effect. If you then find out that the words don't actually mean what the lawmakers thought they mean, the result is not that the effect of the law changes, but that the wording of the law changes. For example, if people made laws concerning vegetables and wanted tomatoes included but didn't realise that tomatoes are a fruit and not a vegetable, that would just mean that the wording of the law is going to change. If you convince lawmakers that software isn't patentable because it is maths, but the lawmakers want software to be patentable, they will just change the wording of the law. So nothing would be achieved.
Unfair to ask GP to prove a negative. /. should know better.
Like trying to prove that God does NOT exist
Posters on
What's the big deal? Yes all computer programs are math and thus not patentable. They're automatically copyrighted though, which is as it should be. So if I write a program (which I do a lot it's my job), the actual code I write is copyrighted and if anyone steals it they're in trouble. OTOH if someone sees my app and codes up one of their own just like it, no problem, as long as they didn't steal my actual code there's no copyright infringement. However, if programs were patentable, there would be a patent infringement. Just in case anyone needs it spelled out, that would mean the end of open source software.
The problem with not having patents is that it encourages people to keep things secret to stop others from copying. This then leads to great ideas being lost when the business fails or the inventor dies.
I think the "patentable" bar should be set higher, so that a process has to be particularly inventive and non-intuitive to get a patent for it. The problem with software patents is the stifling effect from having too many obvious patents. If lots of developers can independently re-invent the same idea (e.g. progress bar) then the patent should be rendered invalid.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Vector graphics, much?
So the human brain is not a computer?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I'm not confusing patents and copyrights. A computer can process computer code, literature, or a photograph. They are all copyrightable, not patentable. Interestingly enough, a computer can also process a patent, which certainly is patentable. The idea that anything a computer can process is not patentable is obviously absurd.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
What's the big deal? Yes all computer programs are math, and no, they can't and shouldn't be patented. However, they are automatically copyrighted, and that's as it should be. If I write a program (which I do a lot it's my job), then the actual code I write is copyrighted and if anyone steals it they're in trouble. However, if someone sees my app codes up one just like it, no problem. If they didn't steal my actual code there's no copyright infringement. OTOH, if programs were patentable, there would be a patent infringement. In case anyone needs it spelled out, that would mean the end of open source software.
How about just drawing the line at math, dumbass. You clearly do not know the difference between something that is math, and something that can be represented with math. Hint, if you can touch it, it's not math. When you can touch a printf, then it won't be math.
And science.
Ratios, dimensions, vectors, interaction with light, and affecting biochemical responses.
No, you still don't get it. It's not 'can I describe it with English', it's can 'I reproduce it with English'. You can reproduce the video with nothing but Math. The video itself is just a bunch of numbers, that we have all agreed represent something. You could do that with English too, if numbers are a subset of English. I still like my 'can you touch it' differentiation. If you can touch it, it's not math. You can't touch a video, so it might be math.
Are you all really this stupid, or are you just a bunch of trolls? You get it both right and wrong in your first sentence. Math is a language. It is not anything else. It is made up by humans. It does not exist if we do not (unless some other intelligent species makes it up).
Anything that is compoutable can be done in Haskell. Haskell maps directly to lamda calculus.
(" putStrLn "Hello World" " a function from String to the IO monad.)
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Patent Troll sees opportunity.
It should not stop with math. Ideas in general should not be patentable, nor anything organic (I am looking at you Monsanto).
Your first 10 patents that get denied, are free. Each one after that should be exponentially be more expensive. Each re-entry will be counted as half a new one. And you should have a working machine within a reasonable time (e.g. 2 years) , otherwise the patent goes to public domain.
That way you still encourage the small inventor, but block the patent trolls. They will have some sort of working machine and seldom have many patents. The 2 years give them time to find investors to actually make a working machine.
So if you have the patent and were unable to make the machine, somebody anybody can take your patent and improve on it and make it work. As it is in public domain, everybody then can use it.
It should be looked at as a way to stand on the shoulders of giants, not as a struggle against Goliath.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Some better, some worse. But, our computers aren't as literal, as precise, as fast. Our computers benefit from all sorts of weird short circuits and other weird crap.
I think our brains are both something more and something less than a "computer".
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
No, a computer cannot interpret Shakespeare. You're going to have to prove that to use it here.
This has been the most amusing story I've seen on /. in a long time.
So many getting wrapped around the axle with what is or isn't math, if ANYthing should be patentable or not, and wearing their emotions here.
Whatever, any of us believe here, our opinions mean Jack, and the courts will decide (likely in the middle somewhere) that some things are math and others are not, despite the functions of printing Hello World, and 0s and 1s.
Just my $.02. Let's have a sane discussion on the value, or lack thereof, of any patents. For myself, I've got mixed feelings. While I despise patent trolling, I do see value in allowing patents for a fixed period of time in order to allow the creator to benefit from their invention. What that period should be?...I'm not sure what's reasonable. I think there should be some discussion about the transfer of patents when one company purchases another, and maybe even eliminating that, but confess I haven't really thought it through.
At some point, I'll be contacting my Congressmen and expressing my opinion on this. I'm sure some of you would tell me that's a useless naive exercise, and I'll counter with a couple of examples where it's worked for me.
Cheers!
Just another day in Paradise
Can I patent my method for calculating the area of a circle? It' the radius squared times this magic number I've discovered. That's an algorthim , right?
Patents aren't about "recognition for original creative work". They're about giving you the ability to (indirectly) send goons with guns to stop some poor schmuck from building a machine like yours -- unless, of course, he cuts you in for a piece of the action. But as long as the patent office and a judge are involved, that makes it "rule of law" rather than "criminal syndicate" as it might appear.
Recognition is a good thing -- and you can publish your work in journal to receive that recognition, and as a bonus that prevents it from being patented.
Stamping out competition (or extorting "license fees") through force is a bad thing -- and that's the purpose every utility patent exists for. Find a damn spine and refuse to sell your soul for a paltry filing bonus.
I wonder if actually allowing math to be patentable would be a good thing, in that it might create an asnine enough situation that finally brings the entire mess crashing down.
Hate to burst your logic bubble there, but guess what? Art is NOT patentable. So far, at least. (That's not to say some attorneys in the U.S. haven't tried.)
A computer can interpret Shakespeare
Alas the grief and dedly wofull smert :
The carefull chaunce shapen afore my shert ;
The sorrowfull teares, the sighes hote as fyer,
That cruell love hath long soked from myn hert.
And for reward of our greate desire
Disdaynful dowblenes have I for my hier.
And here's the computer interpretation:
And chaunce carefull shapen above my shert;
And teares sorrowfull, the and his hotel sighes as fyer,
That love cruell hath soked the long Maine HERT.
To reward the desire of our greate
dowblenes Disdaynful I have for my Hare.
I think you're wrong there, fellow.
Perhaps someone should introduce you to assembly language, which is composed entirely of well-understood mathematical operations. And all software reduces down to assembly language. (And then to binary numbers, but those are just numbers, not "math," as it were.)
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Everything on a computer is NOT math. Everything on a computer is representable as math.
Incorrect, Sir! Everything on a computer is math, complicated math, used to store/represent what ever the information, picture, sound, etc. that the user wants on the computer. A computer can only compute, it can only do math, that is it's only function, period. We, as humans, have become so ridiculously advanced with our understanding and application of math have been able to take a machine which can only do math, albeit at ridiculous speed, and pretty much do whatever we can imagine with it. People have designed entire 3D models of cities using nothing but math.
That's like saying that a chair is just a representation of geometrical shapes which can be expressed as mathematical formulas. Everything is math, therefore everything must not be patentable.
That's not the same analogy. A chair is made of wood, which comes from a tree. A tree doesn't do math, it lives, grows and tries to reproduce. Starting with that and turning it into a chair is not math.
However, a computer is a machine that's only purpose is to compute. The only thing a computer can do at it's core, is math. So every piece of software, at its core, is nothing more than a complex, iterative, mathematical formula, period. If complex, iterative mathematical formulas cannot be patented then neither should software because they are the same thing.
Well, I HATE this software argument about patents as, to be honest, EVERYTHING can be described as mathematics
While true that everything can be described in mathematical terms that doesn't make the comparison the same. When it comes to software, it not only can be described in mathematical terms, it is compiled and executed in mathematical terms because that's all the CPU understands, it's the only thing the computer can do, execute mathematical expressions, you know "Compute".
When software is distributed to the end-user, it is nothing but a complex, iterative, mathematical formula formatted in the way the computer understands so that it can compute it for you. It is not anything else and never was, except for maybe source code but that would fall under copyright.
1. You can of course claim that all software is maths, and call everyone stupid who doesn't believe it, but that doesn't make it true. If someone says "it is a mathematical function", I say "show me the function". Which never happens.
Look at the compiled code, what the software actually is, the step by step, iterative process that is fed to the CPU and you will see it nothing but a veeeeerrrryyyyyy long sequence of simple math operations. That is all software is. All other concepts about software were abstractions of this fact, created by us, so that we could understand and utilize it better.
Unfortunately, I don't believe that your argument is valid. While it's true that the high/low voltage signals used in chips are isomorphic to 1/0 values, they aren't the same thing. E.g., high could be either 1 or 0, as long as low was the other. (There might need to be some hardware changes to accomodate this, but they would be trivial.)
The argument about "print" not being math isn't valid, but certainly the way it is used to drive a peripheral isn't math. That's hardware. And hardware isn't implicit in the code. (You could write to /dev/null as a math operation, but I don't think you can make the same argument about writing to a printer or a screen. At least not without delving into quantum physics.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The problem with not having patents is that it encourages people to keep things secret to stop others from copying. This then leads to great ideas being lost when the business fails or the inventor dies.
That's a nice theory but, in practice, the majority of patents are complete nonsense. There's the obvious stuff either from patent trolls looking to lurk until they can make a quick buck off someone who is actually doing something productive. Then you have your inventors who create something neat and marketable, but whose invention doesn't really fit the definition required to get a patent (that fact doesn't stop the patent being issued of course). A good example of the latter can be found in that late-night commercial for patent services where their example is an inflatable carwash for kids. It's a neat toy, but it's all made of obvious parts. There's absolutely no contribution to human technology there. Any engineer or, for that matter, home tinkerer could sit down with the raw materials and make an equivalent "invention" based on their knowledge of what has come before. Then there are the patents granted to the quacks and loonies. Then there's the patents on unpatentable scientific discoveries granted to, for example, biotech firms who isolate a particular gene/protein/biowhatever, figure out what it's for, then write up a blanket patent or set of patents claiming all possible therapeutic uses for the discovery they can think of based on what it naturally does.
Then, there's the minority of patents that are actually for what could be considered real inventions. All well and good except that, if you actually read them or talk to anyone who writes them for a living, they're intentionally written to dance around the actual "secret sauce" of the invention. The intention is to obtain patent protection, but obfuscate the patent enough that trade secret protection is maintained as well. Anyone trying to recreate the invention from the patent will typically have more luck either re-inventing it themselves or reverse-engineering it from an extant example of the invention.
No. A number is not math. Manipulation of that number is.
Without mathematics, please tell me how to read this number: 123456
Without a description of the symbol mappings to the numeric meanings, how do you read the number? If it's just glyphs then it's not a number, but as soon as you say it's a number, then it has mathematic syntactical symbolic meaning. The mathematic encoding of the number is required to read it. Its numeric base, AKA radix, even the language surrounding it is a form of mathematics that dictate how you lexically analyze the number: Is the text left to right or right to left? Little endian or big endian? Top to bottom or bottom to top? Grammar rules and spelling and pronunciations are all a form of mathematics: Symbol processing.
If you do not believe this, then you have not studied anything to a sufficient degree. Here's how you would typically understand that number, with mathematics:
(1 * 100000 + 2 * 10000 + 3 * 1000) + (4 * 100 + 5 * 10 * 6)
One hundred twenty three thousand, four hundred fifty six. <- That's mathematics, you idiot.
Well,
printf(x) =def= prints arg to the standard output device
You're referring to numerals, not numbers.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Try thinking about it this way.
How would you execute printf("Hello, world\n"); code using a screwdriver and units of work? Now try building a chair with a pencil and paper and NAND logic symbols. No fair swapping tools during either exercise.
Computer code is math, anything that needs a unit of work to twist a screwdriver is not. Unless said math can leap off the page of course. And thinking that moving electrons in a chip to evaluate the NAND expressions as the units of work ... well chips are patentable and need units of work to create. The conceptual instructions they run, however complex, not so much.
[*words*]In this case why should I even bother trying to innovate?
Because innovating will give you what is called a first mover advantage and for the most part that is enough, if your idea is truly innovative. The closer your idea is to an already existing product, the less of an advantage you'll get. I posit that zero patents could just as easily spur even more innovation. Patents as they are now do not, since once you have even the slightest new idea you're set for life + the lifespan of your grandchildren. That does not encourage innovation.
... whatever
You seem to think that an idea can only ever be had once, why is that? There is no problem in keeping something innovative a secret, and the idea will only be lost until someone picks up on it again. If it truly was a good idea then someone will think of it. If it was a bad idea, then that's the reason the business failed.
... whatever
Isn't code already math? Any algorithm can be implemented on a Turing machine, which is a mathematical construct.
How about VHDL/Verilog code? You can build physical mechanism (chips) out of those. They are basically schematics of machines. Should those be patentable? I wonder.
The problem with that logic is that with sufficient effort you could show that any problem can be reduced to math.
Not true.
The question is not can something be reduced to math, but is it math itself.
Same difference. If it can be reduced to math, then it is math.
For example: geometry is a mathematical field, but not everything created using geometry is math.
Yes it is. A bridge is not geometry. No amount of geometry will let you drive a car over a river. You are going to need some concrete and steel.
Another example: every video on Youtube. Every one of them is reduced to mathematics before being displayed (and quite often when it is made), but arguing that the video itself is math or a mathematical algorithm is patently ridiculous.
A video is just a finite integer, a "number". The representation of that number as video is just a mathematical transformation.
The construction or selection of the number itself, and the transformation is an artistic endeavor. And we as a society have effectively enabled the copy protection of sufficiently large sufficiently interesting numbers. But that is a separate (albeit interesting) issue.
Oh, and also the burden of proof isn't on him to prove the statement isn't math, it's on people who claim it is math to prove it is.
In another comment I wrote out some simplified set operations recognizable to anyone as 'pure math' that perform the hello world program logic. A formal proof using a turing construct would be more effort but no less doable.
But in general, anything that can be programmed on a computer is a provable subset of what can be programmed on an abstract turing machine. Therefore all software is math.
Proper (e.g. patentable) Inventions however are not math. They may be describable with math, even physics to describe the operation of the motor, chemistry to describe the burning of fuel etc. But chemical equations are not chemicals. And phsyics equations are not motors. No amount of math is going to get you from point a to point b the way a honda civic will.
This being the internet, for the sake of argument I'll presume you're not just being funny. ;)
Maxwell's equations are "a set of partial differential equations that, together with the Lorentz force law, form the foundation of classical electrodynamics, classical optics, and electric circuits."
So if by turtles we actually meant math, it really does seem to be turtles all the way down. :)
Someone else has already mentioned the "first mover advantage".
But it's kind of funny you should mention bigger and richer competition copying your work.
(1) Want to know when the USA ignored foreign copyright and patents? Way back when it was trying to grow and improve its own local economy, and compete with the big well-established European markets.
(2) As far as cheap mass-produced knockoffs go, China has been something of the current "poster child" and doesn't exactly have a shining track record of paying attention to foreign patents (at least within its own borders). What does it also have in common with the early USA? Trying to grow its own local economy and compete with the big well-established European and American markets. Japan did much the same thing post-WW2.
So if patents are all that good, why do entities historically ignore other entities patents when they want to grow their own economy? Answer: because the true purpose of patents is to protect an established market (the big fish) from newcomers (the little fish).
Can you touch nanobots? Patentable?
Everything is physical, in this world. The distinctions about what can be touched and what cannot, and the related ideas about patents, were developed when humanity had an incorrect world view that divided things into tangible and intangible (ie mental or spiritual). These are obsolete and incorrect assumptions.
In this universe EVERYTHING has a physical embodiment. This includes thoughts, software, maths, etc. If it does not - we cannot interact with it and so it does not exist, certainly for all practical purposes and most likely in reality.
RE: How would you execute printf("Hello, world\n"); code using a screwdriver and units of work?
Use a screwdriver: scratch the string out on an output device, screen, etc.
Your disctinctions are abitrary. Everything in this world is physical, otherwise it would not be able to affect reality.
double-secret ironic captcha: reject
A novel is written on a computer.
The novel exists only on the computer.
The novel is representable as math, for sure.
And the novel must logically be "on the computer."
Is the novel math?
The novel, in its entirety, is stored in binary digits on a computer. If that is the only place it exists, then it only exists as very long string of 0's and 1's. Converting the binary back to readable ASCII text is math. Mind you, both the binary format and it's conversion to text are copyrightable but neither are patentable which is the context we are talking about.
Nope, ideas can crop up multiple times, but it works a lot better if people can just share ideas. We're all "standing on the shoulders of giants" thanks to people who are willing to share ideas rather than keep them secret and presume that someone else will hit on the exact same idea.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
I totally agree. There should be some way to ensure that Patent offices are penalised for allowing obfuscated or obvious patents.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Really? Physical? Everything? Is my understanding of your words, physical? Is the concept of the word physical, physical?
No, code is not "math" in the sense that is relevant here. The Federal Circuit has been clear, even emphatic, about that fact. Although it may be a subtle distinction for an I-ANAL, one can only state that "mathematics is not patentable, and code is mathematics" if the word "mathematics" is used to mean two different things. It is certainly possible to patent a computer algorithm, so long as it is tied in some way to a physically tangible element. This fact (or its pre-computer analog) has been inherent in our patent system since Jefferson wrote the first U.S. Patent Law, which, like every iteration that followed, expressly defines a "process" or "method" as statutory subject matter.
Patents are created in legal jargon in order to hold up in court, not in technical jargon in order to share. Spot the difference?
Patent law does not foster any kind of sharing or "standing on shoulders of giants", this is a lie paid for by corporations who benefit from holding patents. Patent law creates artificial scarcity which a single entity gets to exploit for however long the law lets them. In the current model, nobody but the patent holder benefits (and perhaps an army of lawyers), but the patent holder can harm an arbitrary amount of people while holding the patent. Using my no-patent model, the inventor still benefits, but cannot harm anyone.
Being first to invent something is it's own reward, and the advantage that grants the inventor is enough. If the idea is good enough, the advantage will be massive. If the idea is but a tiny modification of someone else's work, the advantage will be almost none. This is how it should be. This will spur thinking outside the box rather than trying to reword everything to be "on a whatever-device".
... whatever
Unfortunately, you're right - that's the current state of patents.
The original idea of patents was to encourage sharing of ideas and that the patents should be written so that a person skilled in the relevant field could re-produce the process. Without patents, there's little incentive to share innovations with others on a business level.
I think the current state of patent law stifles innovation as you can't just invent something without infringing on multiple patents that you've never seen or knowingly used.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe