ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Software is math"

(Counter arguments: '''IP Watchdog''')
(add navbox)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
==Math is not patentable==
 
==Math is not patentable==
 +
 
===Case law in the USA===
 
===Case law in the USA===
  
Line 33: Line 34:
  
 
==Some judges say math is patentable==
 
==Some judges say math is patentable==
 
 
In the 2011 UK High Court [[The Halliburton rulings by UK High Court - 2005-2011|decision on the Halliburton case]], the judge said that math can be patentable because:
 
In the 2011 UK High Court [[The Halliburton rulings by UK High Court - 2005-2011|decision on the Halliburton case]], the judge said that math can be patentable because:
  
Line 47: Line 47:
  
 
==Church-Turing Thesis or Curry-Howard isomorphism?==
 
==Church-Turing Thesis or Curry-Howard isomorphism?==
 
 
There are two mathematical bases that can be used to make this argument.{{help|This page was written by a non-specialist.  Any help would be appreciated.}}
 
There are two mathematical bases that can be used to make this argument.{{help|This page was written by a non-specialist.  Any help would be appreciated.}}
  
Line 55: Line 54:
  
 
==EPO says software is math==
 
==EPO says software is math==
 
 
According to the EPO, as written in [[EPO EBoA referral G3-08]] (''page 12 of 18''):
 
According to the EPO, as written in [[EPO EBoA referral G3-08]] (''page 12 of 18''):
  
Line 62: Line 60:
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
  
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
+
==Related pages==
 
* [[Anti-lock braking example]] - if the physical car invention is patentable, should an in-computer game-simulation be?
 
* [[Anti-lock braking example]] - if the physical car invention is patentable, should an in-computer game-simulation be?
 
* [[Books]]:
 
* [[Books]]:
Line 72: Line 70:
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
 
+
{{process}}
 
* [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)
 
* [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)
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis Church-Turing thesis], '''Wikipedia'''
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis Church-Turing thesis], '''Wikipedia'''
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence Curry–Howard isomorphism], '''Wikipedia'''
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence Curry–Howard isomorphism], '''Wikipedia'''
 +
* [http://www.qulix.com/ Offshore Software Development]
 
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/appeals-court-says-only-complicated-math-is-patentable.ars Does not compute: <nowiki>[US]</nowiki> court says only hard math is patentable], Aug 2011, '''[[Timothy B. Lee]]'''
 
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/appeals-court-says-only-complicated-math-is-patentable.ars Does not compute: <nowiki>[US]</nowiki> court says only hard math is patentable], Aug 2011, '''[[Timothy B. Lee]]'''
 
* {{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
Line 89: Line 88:
  
 
===Counter arguments===
 
===Counter arguments===
 
 
* [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/12/15/computer-software-is-not-math/ Computer Software is Not Math], 15 Dec 2008, '''[[IP Watchdog]]'''
 
* [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/12/15/computer-software-is-not-math/ Computer Software is Not Math], 15 Dec 2008, '''[[IP Watchdog]]'''
 
* [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''")
 
* [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''")
Line 96: Line 94:
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}
  
 +
{{NavWhyAbolish}}
  
{{footer}}
 
 
[[Category:Arguments]]
 
[[Category:Arguments]]

Latest revision as of 07:27, 28 December 2023

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]

Some judges say math is patentable

In the 2011 UK High Court decision on the Halliburton case, the judge said that math can be patentable because:

the data on which the mathematics is performed ... represent’s something concrete (a drill bit design).

Also in 2011, the US CAFC Cybersource v. Retail 16 Aug 2011 case, an algorithm was held patentable because:

as a practical matter, the use of a computer is required.

Church-Turing Thesis or Curry-Howard isomorphism?

There are two mathematical bases that can be used to make this argument.Can you help? This page was written by a non-specialist. Any help would be appreciated.


The Church-Turing Thesis is the more commonly used based. It is discussed by some documents linked in the #External links section.

Another approach would be the Curry-Howard isomorphism, which demonstrates that computer programs are equivalent to mathematical proofs. If proofs are unpatentable, then computer programs must be too.

EPO says software is math

According to the EPO, as written in EPO EBoA referral G3-08 (page 12 of 18):

computer programs were to be understood as a 'mathematical application of a logical series of steps in a process which was no different from a mathematical method

Related pages

External links

Red alert.png This entry contains unprocessed external links.
The "External links" section should only contain links to related websites, not articles. You can help us digest the information contained in these links and include it in the body of the article with appropriate citations.

PolR's articles on Groklaw

(Oldest first)

Counter arguments

References


Why abolish software patents
Why abolish software patents Why focus only on software · Why software is different · Software patent quality worse than all other fields · Harm caused by all types of patents
Legal arguments Software is math · Software is too abstract · Software does not make a computer a new machine · Harming freedom of expression · Blocking useful freedoms
High costs Costly legal costs · Cost of the patent system to governments · Cost barrier to market entry · Cost of defending yourself against patent litigation
Impact on society Restricting freedom Harm without litigation or direct threats · Free software projects harmed by software patents · More than patent trolls · More than innovation · Slow process creates uncertainty
Preventing progress Software relies on incremental development · Software progress happens without patents · Reducing innovation and research · Software development is low risk · Reducing job security · Harming education · Harming standards and compatibility
Disrupting the economy Used for sabotage · Controlling entire markets · Breaking common software distribution models · Blocking competing software · Harming smaller businesses · Harming all types of businesses · A bubble waiting to burst
Problems of the legal system Problems in law Clogging up the legal system · Disclosure is useless · Software patents are unreadable · Publishing information is made dangerous · Twenty year protection is too long
Problems in litigation Patent trolls · Patent ambush · Invalid patents remain unchallenged · Infringement is unavoidable · Inequality between small and large patent holders