Difference between revisions of "Software is math"
(→External links) |
(→Case law in the USA: Ideas which use math ("scientific truth") can be patentable, but this is not controversial: <blockquote> ''While a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| − | ==Case law in the USA== | + | ==Math is not patentable== |
| + | ===Case law in the USA=== | ||
The non-patentability of math was confirmed in the case [[Parker v. Flook (1978, USA)]]: | The non-patentability of math was confirmed in the case [[Parker v. Flook (1978, USA)]]: | ||
| Line 15: | Line 16: | ||
''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.'' | ''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> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ideas which use math ("scientific truth") can be patentable, but this is not controversial: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | ''While a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not patentable invention, a novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth may be.''<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=306&invol=86#94</ref> | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ||
Revision as of 08:38, 8 May 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]
Contents
Math is not patentable
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.
Ideas which use math ("scientific truth") can be patentable, but this is not controversial:
While a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not patentable invention, a novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth may be.[2]
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; On Abstraction and Equivalence in Software Patent Doctrine: A Response to Bessen, Meurer, and Klemens (challenging, inter alia, Klemens's "repeated mischaracterizations of the Church-Turing Thesis")
References
