3 ms·

This is often repeated but wrong, because this is not how patents work. You could present any patent as a discovery of a "pure" fact about physics or mathemati

by pron 7y ago

This is often repeated but wrong, because this is not how patents work. You could present any patent as a discovery of a "pure" fact about physics or mathematics: a particular configuration of physical objects would behave in this particular way according to the laws of physics, or, a certain abstract dynamical system described by this formula (i.e. algorithm) has these properties. The thing is, the patent doesn't protect the discovery or the knowledge or the fact itself. Even with a patent, anyone is free to study the design/algorithm, teach it, write about it, print it on a T-shirt etc.; in fact, patents are meant to help spread the knowledge they contain -- in exchange for a certain protection. What the patent protects is the exploitation of the discovery in some physical product for certain ends, i.e. not the fact about the universe/mathematics, but its practical implementation. So in this respect software patents and, say, mechanical patents are exactly the same: a monopoly is granted for some years on the practical exploitation of certain physical/chemical/biological/mathematical facts in certain ways and for certain means.

lidHanteyk 7y ago
Sure. So, an algorithm isn't patentable. But a particular encoding of that algorithm might be patentable by your logic? However, copyright, not patent rights, protect encoded algorithms! There are many possible programs, but only some are useful. In this sense, patents might protect only those useful programs, and not the useless programs. However, you'd have to write new law to cover this case. Laws written before the advent of information theory are missing fundamental truths of mathematics. In this case, given that patent law already knows about mathematics, surely patent law is prepared to yield.
- pron 7y ago
  > So, an algorithm isn't patentable. But a particular encoding of that algorithm might be patentable by your logic? However, copyright, not patent rights, protect encoded algorithms! No, an algorithm is very much patentable (and not copyrightable, while a program is copyrightable but not patentable), it's just that the patent does not protect the notion or knowledge or mathematical fact of the algorithm -- in fact, it very much makes it public -- it's just gives a monopoly for exploiting the algorithm for some business benefit. > Laws written before the advent of information theory are missing fundamental truths of mathematics. In this case, given that patent law already knows about mathematics, surely patent law is prepared to yield. As I said, this reasoning is irrelevant. Every patent is some "truth" of physics, chemistry or mathematics, but the truth is not what's being granted a monopoly. Everyone is free to know it or teach it. Rather, it is its implementation for profit that's protected. Moreover, because I believe that in the US patents apply to physical inventions, the language of software always describes some computing device computing an algorithm. It seems that technically everyone is allowed to perform the algorithm by hand, even to exploit it for profit. Software patents are therefore not different in principle than any other kind of patent, but they are different in practice, simply because of how they've come to be used.

by pron 7y ago

lidHanteyk 7y ago

Sure. So, an algorithm isn't patentable. But a particular encoding of that algorithm might be patentable by your logic? However, copyright, not patent rights, protect encoded algorithms! There are many possible programs, but only some are useful. In this sense, patents might protect only those useful programs, and not the useless programs. However, you'd have to write new law to cover this case. Laws written before the advent of information theory are missing fundamental truths of mathematics. In this case, given that patent law already knows about mathematics, surely patent law is prepared to yield.

pron 7y ago
> So, an algorithm isn't patentable. But a particular encoding of that algorithm might be patentable by your logic? However, copyright, not patent rights, protect encoded algorithms! No, an algorithm is very much patentable (and not copyrightable, while a program is copyrightable but not patentable), it's just that the patent does not protect the notion or knowledge or mathematical fact of the algorithm -- in fact, it very much makes it public -- it's just gives a monopoly for exploiting the algorithm for some business benefit. > Laws written before the advent of information theory are missing fundamental truths of mathematics. In this case, given that patent law already knows about mathematics, surely patent law is prepared to yield. As I said, this reasoning is irrelevant. Every patent is some "truth" of physics, chemistry or mathematics, but the truth is not what's being granted a monopoly. Everyone is free to know it or teach it. Rather, it is its implementation for profit that's protected. Moreover, because I believe that in the US patents apply to physical inventions, the language of software always describes some computing device computing an algorithm. It seems that technically everyone is allowed to perform the algorithm by hand, even to exploit it for profit. Software patents are therefore not different in principle than any other kind of patent, but they are different in practice, simply because of how they've come to be used.