ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Software is math"

m (Reverted edits by 153.19.1.244 (Talk) to last revision by Ciaran)
(External links)
Line 25: Line 25:
 
* {{lang de}} http://www.users.sbg.ac.at/~jack/legal/swp/tech-turing-lambda.pdf
 
* {{lang de}} http://www.users.sbg.ac.at/~jack/legal/swp/tech-turing-lambda.pdf
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis Wikipedia: Church-Turing thesis]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis Wikipedia: Church-Turing thesis]
* Counter view: [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/12/15/computer-software-is-not-math/ Computer Software is Not Math]
+
* Counter view: [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/12/15/computer-software-is-not-math/ Computer Software is Not Math]; [http://andrewchin.com/chin/scholarship/abstraction-equivalence.pdf On Abstraction and Equivalence in Software Patent Doctrine: A Response to Bessen, Meurer, and Klemens]
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 17:27, 23 April 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

External links

References