4 ms·

It upsets me more to be reminded that governments grant monopolies on not-very-difficult-to-come-up-with ideas such as any of those mentioned in the article.

by math 8y ago

squirrelicus 8y ago
Yeah software is this funny new world where the cost of manufacture and distribution is orders of magnitude less than the cost of invention. Patents were intended to solve the opposite problem. Software patents are just inexcusable
- vertexFarm 8y ago
  Even more so when they're often reviewed and legislated on by people who don't even have a fraction of the basic technical curiosity--let alone knowledge--required to understand what they are doing.
- amelius 8y ago
  There are algorithms that, in my opinion, would deserve a patent, though. Software can, in some cases, be more clever than e.g. mechanical inventions. It would be unfair if one inventor could apply for a patent, while the other could not.
  - QML 8y ago
    Should we allow for algorithms to be patented though? To reserve something so abstract would be near equal to claiming a mathematical formula for oneself. If IBM had patented the fast Fourier transform, where would signal processing be?
    - amelius 8y ago
      If someone can patent, say, the magsafe connector, then I don't see why someone couldn't patent the FFT. Whether it's a good thing that patents exist is another matter, though.
      - janoc 8y ago
        I think the idea behind patents was that you can't patent natural phenomena and things that derive from them. Algorithms are just another way of expressing mathematics and logic so that is what gives the rise to the idea that these things shouldn't be patentable. Mathematics and logic describe laws of nature (such as waves in the case of a Fourier transform) which exist without us "inventing" them. Magsafe connector is an engineering invention that doesn't exist or derive from anything in the nature.
        sametmax 8y ago
        Good luck to define "natural".
    - Someone 8y ago
      Patents on mp3 and RSA didn’t prevent them from being used everywhere. I guess a patent on FFT (which, by the way, was considered at the time, according to Wikipedia) wouldn’t have stopped its adoption either. Also, IMO, a formula, which tells you what to compute, is essentially different from an algorithm, which tells you how. FFT would be patentable because it is non-obvious, even when given the formula for doing a Fourier transform. It still might be non-patentable on other grounds, such as the fact that Gauss apparently described it in 1805 (http://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg716/Gauss_History_FFT.pdf http://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg716/Gauss_History_FFT.pdf), two years before Fourier published his work on what now is known as Fourier series.
      - janoc 8y ago
        Sorry, a formula and an algorithm are not at all different. A mathematical formula is just a symbolic expression of an abstract concept, with the procedure (algorithm) how to use it being implicit (= obvious to the person skilled in the art). A computer algorithm can be trivially converted into purely mathematical/logic representation ("formulas" if you want), e.g. using things like lambda calculus. And vice-versa - an abstract mathematical problem formulation can be converted into an algorithm (assuming the solution is known). If you start patenting algorithms, you are patenting math.
        1787 8y ago
        It is true that an algorithm can be converted to a formula, and a formula to an algorithm, but it is unlikely a given useful algorithm could be generated mechanically from a (human-written, useful) formula. For example, you could write a formula to express the property of order in lists, and maybe with some mechanical procedure (falling under "obvious to the person skilled in the art") you could then generate an algorithm that sorted lists. However, what's the time/space complexity of that algorithm? What are the practical runtime characteristics? For industry applications the practical runtime characteristics matter as much as anything else. That you technically could compute something doesn't matter at all, if that computation might not finish until relevant celestial bodies have phase changes. I'm not saying Quicksort should be patentable, but I do think it's at least a step and a half removed from pure math.
    - gsnedders 8y ago
      I used to be absolutely against software patents on those grounds, but I nowadays actually think it's a weak argument. We don't see people arguing we shouldn't patent physical machines because ultimately each operation is a simple physical movement, so the sum of everything is just a sequence of physical movements. Yet we see people arguing we shouldn't patent software "machines" because ultimately each operation is a simple mathematical operation, so the sum of everything is just a sequence of mathematical operations. The argument against the patentability of maths, AFAIK, has always been "maths is naturally inherent and merely discovered by humans". This, to me, is an argument against pure maths especially; but as we get into applied maths I think it's much less arguable that algorithms and data structures are naturally inherent (much like how physical constructions—machines—aren't naturally inherent from the laws of physics). I still strongly think far too many patents get issued, but I'm less convinced than I used to be software patents are inherently bad, and that patents do need reform in various ways.
      - lightsighter 8y ago
        All programs are proofs and their results are theorems[1]. If "math is naturally inherent and merely discovered by humans" then so are all programs; programmers are just discoverers and not inventors. Given the proof of Curry-Howard Isomorphism rests on existing maths we can have another discussion about whether mathematical patents should be issued if we don't believe that maths are inherent and are actually invented, but as long as we hold that we can't patent maths then it must also hold that we can't patent programs due to their equivalence. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...
        yorwba 8y ago
        Programs and proofs are not actually equivalent. The Curry-Howard correspondence is only concerned with the types. If you take a useful program and replace every function with another of the same type, the program is now pointless but still corresponds to the same proof. And unless you're explicitly trying to encode mathematical statements into the type system, that proof is likely to only show something trivial like "there is an integer".
    - windows_tips 8y ago
      A patent on fast Fourier transform would essentially do nothing, as no one appears to be selling the algorithm outright.
      - tqkxzugoaupvwqr 8y ago
        A patent on FFT would stop anyone from using it in their products. A patent does not solely mean you can’t sell the patented thing, it means you are prohibited from commercially using the patented thing in any way.
        windows_tips 8y ago
        Seems like it would be possible to do something like: produce a freely available device that you provide some kind of supportive or value-added service for.
  - squirrelicus 8y ago
    Copyright can still exist, as well as licensing and IP law and trade secret protection. Patenting is just saying "we'll disclose this invention in exchange for a temporary monopoly". It's especially problematic in software because algorithms are very closely tied to fundamental mathematical axoims. For example, you can't just try really hard and make a O(n) sort. There is no benefit to society to granting a monopoly on a faster O(nlogn) sort
- chrisbennet 8y ago
  I'm against software patents but patents were not intended "to solve the opposite problem" (expensive manufacture & distribution and cheap invention). They were intended to solve the problem of technological progress being hindered by trade secrets that never come into the public domain. If you couldn't protect your recipe for making a life saving drug, no one else could make it even if you decided not to anymore or went out of business. From the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8): "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
  - squirrelicus 8y ago
    I think it's easy to argue that there is some value in encouraging the publication of said inventions after the patent expiration date, but your argument is incorrect. The problem was when the Doc invents the flux capacitor in his workshop, he needs to go to GeneralIntelectric Corp, pitch his invention, and disclose his scematics for a beta production run . Without patents, the Doc doesn't have a comprehensive and cheap legal protection from the megacorp just saying no and stealing his thing. Sure, if the Doc had more money, he could invest in a legal team to get him this protection, but it would probably involve publicly filing details of his invention anyway, thus emulating a shittier version of patents.
monochromatic 8y ago
The article didn’t exactly analyze the claims.
windows_tips 8y ago
Does Zuckerberg defend their supposed right to prevent others from doing the things in their patent for commercial purposes?

It upsets me more to be reminded that governments grant monopolies on not-very-difficult-to-come-up-with ideas such as any of those mentioned in the article.

by math 8y ago

It upsets me more to be reminded that governments grant monopolies on not-very-difficult-to-come-up-with ideas such as any of those mentioned in the article.

squirrelicus 8y ago

Yeah software is this funny new world where the cost of manufacture and distribution is orders of magnitude less than the cost of invention. Patents were intended to solve the opposite problem. Software patents are just inexcusable

vertexFarm 8y ago
Even more so when they're often reviewed and legislated on by people who don't even have a fraction of the basic technical curiosity--let alone knowledge--required to understand what they are doing.
amelius 8y ago
There are algorithms that, in my opinion, would deserve a patent, though. Software can, in some cases, be more clever than e.g. mechanical inventions. It would be unfair if one inventor could apply for a patent, while the other could not.
- QML 8y ago
  Should we allow for algorithms to be patented though? To reserve something so abstract would be near equal to claiming a mathematical formula for oneself. If IBM had patented the fast Fourier transform, where would signal processing be?
  - amelius 8y ago
    If someone can patent, say, the magsafe connector, then I don't see why someone couldn't patent the FFT. Whether it's a good thing that patents exist is another matter, though.
    - janoc 8y ago
      I think the idea behind patents was that you can't patent natural phenomena and things that derive from them. Algorithms are just another way of expressing mathematics and logic so that is what gives the rise to the idea that these things shouldn't be patentable. Mathematics and logic describe laws of nature (such as waves in the case of a Fourier transform) which exist without us "inventing" them. Magsafe connector is an engineering invention that doesn't exist or derive from anything in the nature.
      - sametmax 8y ago
        Good luck to define "natural".
  - Someone 8y ago
    Patents on mp3 and RSA didn’t prevent them from being used everywhere. I guess a patent on FFT (which, by the way, was considered at the time, according to Wikipedia) wouldn’t have stopped its adoption either. Also, IMO, a formula, which tells you what to compute, is essentially different from an algorithm, which tells you how. FFT would be patentable because it is non-obvious, even when given the formula for doing a Fourier transform. It still might be non-patentable on other grounds, such as the fact that Gauss apparently described it in 1805 (http://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg716/Gauss_History_FFT.pdf http://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg716/Gauss_History_FFT.pdf), two years before Fourier published his work on what now is known as Fourier series.
    - janoc 8y ago
      Sorry, a formula and an algorithm are not at all different. A mathematical formula is just a symbolic expression of an abstract concept, with the procedure (algorithm) how to use it being implicit (= obvious to the person skilled in the art). A computer algorithm can be trivially converted into purely mathematical/logic representation ("formulas" if you want), e.g. using things like lambda calculus. And vice-versa - an abstract mathematical problem formulation can be converted into an algorithm (assuming the solution is known). If you start patenting algorithms, you are patenting math.
      - 1787 8y ago
        It is true that an algorithm can be converted to a formula, and a formula to an algorithm, but it is unlikely a given useful algorithm could be generated mechanically from a (human-written, useful) formula. For example, you could write a formula to express the property of order in lists, and maybe with some mechanical procedure (falling under "obvious to the person skilled in the art") you could then generate an algorithm that sorted lists. However, what's the time/space complexity of that algorithm? What are the practical runtime characteristics? For industry applications the practical runtime characteristics matter as much as anything else. That you technically could compute something doesn't matter at all, if that computation might not finish until relevant celestial bodies have phase changes. I'm not saying Quicksort should be patentable, but I do think it's at least a step and a half removed from pure math.
  - gsnedders 8y ago
    I used to be absolutely against software patents on those grounds, but I nowadays actually think it's a weak argument. We don't see people arguing we shouldn't patent physical machines because ultimately each operation is a simple physical movement, so the sum of everything is just a sequence of physical movements. Yet we see people arguing we shouldn't patent software "machines" because ultimately each operation is a simple mathematical operation, so the sum of everything is just a sequence of mathematical operations. The argument against the patentability of maths, AFAIK, has always been "maths is naturally inherent and merely discovered by humans". This, to me, is an argument against pure maths especially; but as we get into applied maths I think it's much less arguable that algorithms and data structures are naturally inherent (much like how physical constructions—machines—aren't naturally inherent from the laws of physics). I still strongly think far too many patents get issued, but I'm less convinced than I used to be software patents are inherently bad, and that patents do need reform in various ways.
    - lightsighter 8y ago
      All programs are proofs and their results are theorems[1]. If "math is naturally inherent and merely discovered by humans" then so are all programs; programmers are just discoverers and not inventors. Given the proof of Curry-Howard Isomorphism rests on existing maths we can have another discussion about whether mathematical patents should be issued if we don't believe that maths are inherent and are actually invented, but as long as we hold that we can't patent maths then it must also hold that we can't patent programs due to their equivalence. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...
      - yorwba 8y ago
        Programs and proofs are not actually equivalent. The Curry-Howard correspondence is only concerned with the types. If you take a useful program and replace every function with another of the same type, the program is now pointless but still corresponds to the same proof. And unless you're explicitly trying to encode mathematical statements into the type system, that proof is likely to only show something trivial like "there is an integer".
  - windows_tips 8y ago
    A patent on fast Fourier transform would essentially do nothing, as no one appears to be selling the algorithm outright.
    - tqkxzugoaupvwqr 8y ago
      A patent on FFT would stop anyone from using it in their products. A patent does not solely mean you can’t sell the patented thing, it means you are prohibited from commercially using the patented thing in any way.
      - windows_tips 8y ago
        Seems like it would be possible to do something like: produce a freely available device that you provide some kind of supportive or value-added service for.
- squirrelicus 8y ago
  Copyright can still exist, as well as licensing and IP law and trade secret protection. Patenting is just saying "we'll disclose this invention in exchange for a temporary monopoly". It's especially problematic in software because algorithms are very closely tied to fundamental mathematical axoims. For example, you can't just try really hard and make a O(n) sort. There is no benefit to society to granting a monopoly on a faster O(nlogn) sort
chrisbennet 8y ago
I'm against software patents but patents were not intended "to solve the opposite problem" (expensive manufacture & distribution and cheap invention). They were intended to solve the problem of technological progress being hindered by trade secrets that never come into the public domain. If you couldn't protect your recipe for making a life saving drug, no one else could make it even if you decided not to anymore or went out of business. From the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8): "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
- squirrelicus 8y ago
  I think it's easy to argue that there is some value in encouraging the publication of said inventions after the patent expiration date, but your argument is incorrect. The problem was when the Doc invents the flux capacitor in his workshop, he needs to go to GeneralIntelectric Corp, pitch his invention, and disclose his scematics for a beta production run . Without patents, the Doc doesn't have a comprehensive and cheap legal protection from the megacorp just saying no and stealing his thing. Sure, if the Doc had more money, he could invest in a legal team to get him this protection, but it would probably involve publicly filing details of his invention anyway, thus emulating a shittier version of patents.

monochromatic 8y ago

The article didn’t exactly analyze the claims.

windows_tips 8y ago

Does Zuckerberg defend their supposed right to prevent others from doing the things in their patent for commercial purposes?