Difference between revisions of "Software is math"
(==Case law in the USA== The non-patentability of math was confirmed in the case Parker v. Flook (1978, USA): <blockquote> ''Respondent's method for updating alarm limits during catalytic convers) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{navbox | + | {{navbox}}'''Mathematical formulas''' are generally recognised as non-patentable because math is not [[patentable subject matter]]. |
Since the logic (idea) of software can be reduced to a mathematical formula (idea) with Church-Turing Thesis, and because mathematical formulas (idea) are not patentable, patent applications for software ideas should be rejected. | Since the logic (idea) of software can be reduced to a mathematical formula (idea) with Church-Turing Thesis, and because mathematical formulas (idea) are not patentable, patent applications for software ideas should be rejected. | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
''To a computer scientist, this makes no sense, because every algorithm is as mathematical as anything could be. An algorithm is an abstract concept unrelated to physical laws of the universe.''<ref>http://progfree.org/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt</ref> | ''To a computer scientist, this makes no sense, because every algorithm is as mathematical as anything could be. An algorithm is an abstract concept unrelated to physical laws of the universe.''<ref>http://progfree.org/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt</ref> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Case law in the USA== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The non-patentability of math was confirmed in the case [[Parker v. Flook (1978, USA)]]: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | ''Respondent's method for updating alarm limits during catalytic conversion processes, in which the only novel feature is a mathematical formula, held not patentable under 101 of the Patent Act.'' | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
Revision as of 08:40, 28 March 2010
Mathematical formulas are generally recognised as non-patentable because math is not patentable subject matter.
Since the logic (idea) of software can be reduced to a mathematical formula (idea) with Church-Turing Thesis, and because mathematical formulas (idea) are not patentable, patent applications for software ideas should be rejected.
Respected computer scientist Donald Knuth makes the argument:
To a computer scientist, this makes no sense, because every algorithm is as mathematical as anything could be. An algorithm is an abstract concept unrelated to physical laws of the universe.[1]
Case law in the USA
The non-patentability of math was confirmed in the case Parker v. Flook (1978, USA):
Respondent's method for updating alarm limits during catalytic conversion processes, in which the only novel feature is a mathematical formula, held not patentable under 101 of the Patent Act.
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Anti-lock braking example - if the physical car invention is patentable, should an in-computer game-simulation be?
- Books:
External links
- (in German) http://www.users.sbg.ac.at/~jack/legal/swp/tech-turing-lambda.pdf
- Wikipedia: Church-Turing thesis
- Counter view: Computer Software is Not Math
