3 ms·

The difference is between a specific invention vs. a law of mathematics or nature. The latter absolutely should not be patentable. The negative opinion of pate

by api 8y ago

The difference is between a specific invention vs. a law of mathematics or nature. The latter absolutely should not be patentable. The negative opinion of patents around here comes from the fact that most people here are programmers and the vast majority of software patents are trash. I've seen very few patents on software that are not "obvious to anyone skilled in the art," patents on abstract mathematical concepts, or patents for which there is ample prior art in the literature or open source code repositories. Telling the difference requires a great deal of conceptual thinking. Patent examining is "strong AI hard." I think it is possible to expand on these ideas to some useful extent. Obviousness for example could be explained as first-order connectedness is the evolutionary/learning state-space graph. Something is obvious if getting from current art to the new idea requires only one "hop" through state space or traversal of a densely connected region of state space. Non-obvious means some kind of great leap across state space or long journey through many indirections was required. It's basically a measure of creative labor. The RSA patent is often cited as an example of a decent software patent: original, a specific well-bounded invention for a specific purpose, and non-obvious in the extreme. Another example would be if whomever Satoshi is had patented proof of work block chains since that would also meet those criteria. Of course patents on cryptographic systems tend to result in them not being used, but that's a separate issue.

enriquto 8y ago
> The difference is between a specific invention vs. a law of mathematics or nature. The latter absolutely should not be patentable. I do not understand the difference between the two. As a mathematician with an interest in philosophy, I would say that about 50% of mathematicians would agree that algorithms and theorems are discovered, not invented. Thus, your example of RSA as a "good" patent sounds preposterous to me. The RSA algorithm was discovered, and it is a law of nature as much as the Euclidean algorithm to find the gcd. I find it honestly absurd that it can be patented (not angry, merely surprised).
- rayiner 8y ago
  That's a bit of reductio ad absurdum. The RSA algorithm is a "law of [mathematical] nature" as much as a log cabin is natural. The composition of natural building blocks into something that performs a function is a work of human ingenuity. That said, RSA itself probably would not be patentable today. The Supreme Court's decision in Alice probably precludes pure algorithm patents. You need an algorithm in the context of a specific use case. For example, a cell phone that uses RSA to encrypt keys to protect data in flash memory.
  - pnw_hazor 8y ago
    A modern RSA patent application would get past Alice. It is a protocol that could be described/claimed in the context of communication between computers. Where the protocol improves the performance of a computers or communications because X,Y, or Z and improves the security of the session.

by api 8y ago

enriquto 8y ago

> The difference is between a specific invention vs. a law of mathematics or nature. The latter absolutely should not be patentable. I do not understand the difference between the two. As a mathematician with an interest in philosophy, I would say that about 50% of mathematicians would agree that algorithms and theorems are discovered, not invented. Thus, your example of RSA as a "good" patent sounds preposterous to me. The RSA algorithm was discovered, and it is a law of nature as much as the Euclidean algorithm to find the gcd. I find it honestly absurd that it can be patented (not angry, merely surprised).

rayiner 8y ago
That's a bit of reductio ad absurdum. The RSA algorithm is a "law of [mathematical] nature" as much as a log cabin is natural. The composition of natural building blocks into something that performs a function is a work of human ingenuity. That said, RSA itself probably would not be patentable today. The Supreme Court's decision in Alice probably precludes pure algorithm patents. You need an algorithm in the context of a specific use case. For example, a cell phone that uses RSA to encrypt keys to protect data in flash memory.
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  A modern RSA patent application would get past Alice. It is a protocol that could be described/claimed in the context of communication between computers. Where the protocol improves the performance of a computers or communications because X,Y, or Z and improves the security of the session.