5 ms·

The problem is that algorithms and math are explicitly forbidden from being patented. This is why most software patents include some sort of clause specifying t

by slaymaker1907 9y ago

The problem is that algorithms and math are explicitly forbidden from being patented. This is why most software patents include some sort of clause specifying that the work is done using a computer. The patent office has simply done a lousy job when it comes to software patents.

lkbm 9y ago
I hadn't heard it explained this way before, but it explains so much. So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding?
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  That's not how it works in Europe; just saying "done on a computer" is explicitly not enough. There's a concept called "technical effect" that's been worked over in the courts and well developed in the last decade (I'll leave you to look it up, eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_E...). I'm a bit out of the loop but whilst USA started letting pretty much anything in there seem to have tightened up over the years. There's a parallel with business methods too. In both cases there been a move towards a middleground - harmonisation. Personally I feel the USA position is far worse and this harmonisation is not good; liberalisation of soft-pat and business method patents on Europe would be a big loss IMO.
- rhino369 9y ago
  >So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding? That was how the law was until recently. But the supreme court found that "just do it on a computer" no longer counts.
  - chris_wot 9y ago
    That's the Alice case, which is described here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Inte...
URSpider94 9y ago
I don't believe you are correct. You can't patent math, but you can patent algorithms. This is analogous to the material world, where you can't patent physics, but you can patent engineering. An algorithm isn't math, it's a series of instructions. That is something that is patentable, as long as it involves an inventive step. A more efficient sorting algorithm that is non-obvious would almost certainly be patentable.
- zephyrppt 9y ago
  You're partially correct. Algorithms can't be patented. However, in practice, patent drafters work around this by adding phrases such as "A memory with computer readable instructions to [Insert Algorithm]" to turn the algorithm into an invented product. The bottom line is that the invention is the memory and the processor system whose novelty is that it includes instructions which implement the particular steps of the algorithm. This practically covers all implementations of the algorithm on Von Neumann machines, in effect covering all current implementations of the algorithm.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    Anything you can do in software I can do with a set of hydraulic value). Your software will be faster (a video game on my valves will take several lifetimes to display the opening), but it will work (until something leaks). thus you can translate your program to hydraulics and it is patentable.
  - chris_wot 9y ago
    It's gotten harder to do this since Alice. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Inte...
- jacobolus 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._Flook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._Flook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos

lkbm 9y ago

I hadn't heard it explained this way before, but it explains so much. So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding?

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
That's not how it works in Europe; just saying "done on a computer" is explicitly not enough. There's a concept called "technical effect" that's been worked over in the courts and well developed in the last decade (I'll leave you to look it up, eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_E...). I'm a bit out of the loop but whilst USA started letting pretty much anything in there seem to have tightened up over the years. There's a parallel with business methods too. In both cases there been a move towards a middleground - harmonisation. Personally I feel the USA position is far worse and this harmonisation is not good; liberalisation of soft-pat and business method patents on Europe would be a big loss IMO.
rhino369 9y ago
>So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding? That was how the law was until recently. But the supreme court found that "just do it on a computer" no longer counts.
- chris_wot 9y ago
  That's the Alice case, which is described here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Inte...

URSpider94 9y ago

I don't believe you are correct. You can't patent math, but you can patent algorithms. This is analogous to the material world, where you can't patent physics, but you can patent engineering. An algorithm isn't math, it's a series of instructions. That is something that is patentable, as long as it involves an inventive step. A more efficient sorting algorithm that is non-obvious would almost certainly be patentable.

zephyrppt 9y ago
You're partially correct. Algorithms can't be patented. However, in practice, patent drafters work around this by adding phrases such as "A memory with computer readable instructions to [Insert Algorithm]" to turn the algorithm into an invented product. The bottom line is that the invention is the memory and the processor system whose novelty is that it includes instructions which implement the particular steps of the algorithm. This practically covers all implementations of the algorithm on Von Neumann machines, in effect covering all current implementations of the algorithm.
- bluGill 9y ago
  Anything you can do in software I can do with a set of hydraulic value). Your software will be faster (a video game on my valves will take several lifetimes to display the opening), but it will work (until something leaks). thus you can translate your program to hydraulics and it is patentable.
- chris_wot 9y ago
  It's gotten harder to do this since Alice. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Inte...
jacobolus 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._Flook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._Flook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos