5 ms·
The “software is math” line of reasoning doesn’t make sense to me. Is it math because numbers and logic are involved? In that sense, chemistry is just as much
by amscanne 9y ago
The “software is math” line of reasoning doesn’t make sense to me.
Is it math because numbers and logic are involved? In that sense, chemistry is just as much math, yet new compounds and drugs are readily patentable. Ditto for physics or mechanical engineering, both of which can produce patentable goods. The only difference for software seems to be that it’s trivially copiable and adaptable.
This isn’t to say there aren’t massive problems with software patents today. Regardless of how you feel about the concept generally, the patent on timestamps seems roughly equivalent to a patent on painting something red, a trivial and obvious product refinement.
- c22 9y agoIt's because numbers and logic are all that's involved. Unlike those other disciplines, any "result" in computing could be derived and executed entirely inside one's head, the computer, in principle, is just saving us time by doing the calculations for us. This is what makes software analogous to math. I have no idea why math should be immune from the otherwise ridiculous and overreaching patent system.
- amscanne 9y agoThat’s all true for chemistry and physics too, once there’s an understanding of the princples. Yet new chemical compounds are patentable. And software is hardly pure numbers and logic. Many aspects of algorithms (and patents) are related to real world elements of the _machine_ executing instructions. The concept of a “space-efficient” algorithm is only meaningful because space has a real world cost and imposes constraints. There are no implications for space in pure “numbers and logic”.