Difference between revisions of "Software is math"
(syntax) |
(→Case law in the USA: Also, in the 1948 case ''Funk Bros. v. Kalo Inoculant'':) |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Math is not patentable== | ==Math is not patentable== | ||
===Case law in the USA=== | ===Case law in the USA=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the USA, math is unpatentable because it is a "law of nature", that is to say a "scientific truth", and as such it can never be "invented", only "discovered", and patents are not granted for discoveries. | ||
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 17: | Line 19: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
− | Ideas which use math | + | Also, in the 1948 case ''Funk Bros. v. Kalo Inoculant'': |
+ | |||
+ | <blockquote> | ||
+ | ''He who discovers a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature has no claim to a monopoly of it which the law recognizes. If there is to be invention from such a discovery, it must come from the application of the law of nature to a new and useful end.''<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=333&invol=127#130</ref> | ||
+ | </blockquote> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Ideas which ''use'' math can be patentable, but this is not controversial: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> |
Revision as of 09:00, 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
In the USA, math is unpatentable because it is a "law of nature", that is to say a "scientific truth", and as such it can never be "invented", only "discovered", and patents are not granted for discoveries.
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.
Also, in the 1948 case Funk Bros. v. Kalo Inoculant:
He who discovers a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature has no claim to a monopoly of it which the law recognizes. If there is to be invention from such a discovery, it must come from the application of the law of nature to a new and useful end.[2]
Ideas which use math 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.[3]
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")