4 ms·

We should abolish software patents. Reason software builds on Mathematics and you cannot patent Mathematics. We all build on others previous work.

by acd 9y ago

mikebenfield 9y ago
> We should abolish software patents. Maybe so. > Reason software builds on Mathematics and you cannot patent Mathematics. This is not a convincing reason. All engineering builds on mathematics; this is not specific to software.
craigsmansion 9y ago
The argument is that software is mathematics, not build on or makes use of mathematics. It's a small but very important distinction.
erk__ 9y ago
Software is not patentable in most of Europe [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur...
wmf 9y ago
But codecs are implemented in hardware. Gotcha!
- bo1024 9y ago
  Not sure if you intended this, but that is exactly the basis for the old legal workaround. To be patentable, an invention must be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" (or something like that). So the first software patents tried saying "we are patenting the following algorithm ... running on a hardware computer!" Amazingly they got away with it and have been getting away with it ever since. Hm, I wonder if you could argue that running the algorithm on a virtual machine doesn't violate the patent....
  - wmf 9y ago
    I wonder if you could argue that running the algorithm on a virtual machine doesn't violate the patent... I think Transmeta tried that by arguing that an x86 JIT doesn't infringe on patents for x86 processors.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    Your quoted definition is for copyright, not patent. Which is why you can write a Romeo-and-Juliet story and copyright that specific story, but not the entire idea of a "doomed star-crossed lovers" story. To be patentable in the US, an invention must be a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof". It must be at least partly new. It must be useful. And it must be non-obvious. Abstract ideas are generally not patentable in the US, and the Supreme Court has declared that "this abstract idea, but implemented on a computer" is also generally not patentable.

We should abolish software patents. Reason software builds on Mathematics and you cannot patent Mathematics. We all build on others previous work.

by acd 9y ago

We should abolish software patents. Reason software builds on Mathematics and you cannot patent Mathematics. We all build on others previous work.

mikebenfield 9y ago

> We should abolish software patents. Maybe so. > Reason software builds on Mathematics and you cannot patent Mathematics. This is not a convincing reason. All engineering builds on mathematics; this is not specific to software.

craigsmansion 9y ago

The argument is that software is mathematics, not build on or makes use of mathematics. It's a small but very important distinction.

erk__ 9y ago

Software is not patentable in most of Europe [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur...

wmf 9y ago

But codecs are implemented in hardware. Gotcha!

bo1024 9y ago
Not sure if you intended this, but that is exactly the basis for the old legal workaround. To be patentable, an invention must be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" (or something like that). So the first software patents tried saying "we are patenting the following algorithm ... running on a hardware computer!" Amazingly they got away with it and have been getting away with it ever since. Hm, I wonder if you could argue that running the algorithm on a virtual machine doesn't violate the patent....
- wmf 9y ago
  I wonder if you could argue that running the algorithm on a virtual machine doesn't violate the patent... I think Transmeta tried that by arguing that an x86 JIT doesn't infringe on patents for x86 processors.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  Your quoted definition is for copyright, not patent. Which is why you can write a Romeo-and-Juliet story and copyright that specific story, but not the entire idea of a "doomed star-crossed lovers" story. To be patentable in the US, an invention must be a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof". It must be at least partly new. It must be useful. And it must be non-obvious. Abstract ideas are generally not patentable in the US, and the Supreme Court has declared that "this abstract idea, but implemented on a computer" is also generally not patentable.