ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

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 ("scientific truth") can be patentable, but this is not controversial:
+
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]

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

External links

References