Difference between revisions of "Software is math"
(→Case law in the USA: Also, in the 1948 case ''Funk Bros. v. Kalo Inoculant'':) |
(→External links: * [http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/scitech/volume141/documents/Klemens.pdf The Rise Of The Information Processing Patent], by Ben Klemens (''Church-Tur) |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
* {{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.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/scitech/volume141/documents/Klemens.pdf The Rise Of The Information Processing Patent], by [[Ben Klemens]] (''Church-Turing'' is discussed on page 8) |
| + | |||
| + | ===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] (challenging, inter alia, Klemens's "''repeated mischaracterizations of the Church-Turing Thesis''") | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 21:55, 17 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
- The Rise Of The Information Processing Patent, by Ben Klemens (Church-Turing is discussed on page 8)
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")
