ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Software is math"

(Related pages on {{SITENAME}}: * Software does not make a computer a new machine)
(Counter view)
Line 44: Line 44:
 
* [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785 An Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers], Groklaw
 
* [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785 An Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers], Groklaw
  
===Counter view===
+
eUoSoq  <a href="http://ubfxfxeeypxp.com/">ubfxfxeeypxp</a>, [url=http://ajbhngxahmbq.com/]ajbhngxahmbq[/url], [link=http://rwvxmnaxsber.com/]rwvxmnaxsber[/link], http://jteithjprzra.com/
* [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 12:47, 1 August 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

eUoSoq <a href="http://ubfxfxeeypxp.com/">ubfxfxeeypxp</a>, [url=http://ajbhngxahmbq.com/]ajbhngxahmbq[/url], [link=http://rwvxmnaxsber.com/]rwvxmnaxsber[/link], http://jteithjprzra.com/

References