Talk:Why software is different

Known and unknown components

There's been an idea rattling in the back of my mind that software is different because the computer (instructions and storage) are known before the invention exists. Any combination of these instructions and data sets would be obvious to a person skilled in the art, say, a computer programmer, when faced with the problem to be solved by the alleged computer-related invention. Therefore any computer program isn't unpatentable by virtue of exclusion, but by virtue of lacking an inventive step.

Why this is different to physics, biology, engineering or chemistry will depend on the field. Engineers need to build mechanical parts, as do physicists. Chemists rely on reaction probabilities and have a huge degree of uncertainty as to whether the reagents do what they say, as also is the case with biological inventions. There's the Heisenberg Limit to these kinds of invention which simply does not exist when a set of known instructions manipulate a set of known data. That's how software is different.

hmm. I'm not sure. Wouldn't that be like saying that because we know all the words in advance, we can't find novels or manuals interesting/innovative? Ciaran 06:45, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

It seems this example is now covered in "Software is unlike applied science". I think this is a much stronger point than most others on the page. In fact, a person hitting the point in mathematics near the very top with how it is written now and who has heard the counterargument that an "application of mathematics" is fine may skip the rest of the page thinking these are just tired old arguments and never get down to the bottom to see "Software is unlike applied science", which is a point that actually captures what is important about software being mathematics or really like any other intellectual pursuit untied to the physical processes. We note that software is written for an "abstract machine" that is implementable with real circuits only because of the wide bounds possible in physical tolerances thanks to the approach called digitalization -- without digitalization (ie, we can "write" it), software would not be so purely mental void of physical constraints. In this very important way software is in step with fiction writing rather than with the practice of science. It hints to why writing software is so low cost (low risk) and hence why so many can participate, leading to significant degrees of abridgment in society and stifling of progress is we introduce broad monopolies. Jose X 02:41, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

I went ahead and changed the Mathematical nature section (adding a link to a key facet of it), trying to cut off rebuttals: (a) that software is an application of mathematics, that it is more than just formulas and (b) that software running on a machine achieves a physical effect, which is more than software as math on paper. More work might be needed to address (b). Feedback welcomed, but I think the prior explanation http://en.swpat.org/wiki?title=Why_software_is_different&oldid=19904 was not convincing (at least not to me and I have heard the above rebuttals frequently whenever software is math is mentioned). [I am aware that using the "formula" linkage might have had success in the past, but there is too persuasive of an argument to undo any such precedent if we don't convey the real nature of software. -- again, feedback wanted by anyone that prefers the old text.]

I augmented the Abstraction section to help bolster the Mathematical nature one as well. Jose X 18:44, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

Might the contents of this paragraph from the Prior art section be useful elsewhere?

"This sizable imperfection being an inherent and unavoidable part of the system means that, without a very inexpensive method to legally refute a legal claim of infringement and/or without serious penalties to those that make claims that don't hold up later on in court, the patent system will continue to be (ab)used readily as a tool to shake down individuals and SMEs and to stifle competition." Jose X 18:44, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

We argue that the imperfection is sizeable - our opponents don't agree. They say it's manageable and that it's small relative to the benefit of the system. We can't write with the assumption that the reader sees patents as bad. That's the opposite of the purpose of this wiki. Ciaran 19:10, 24 October 2010 (EDT)