4 ms·
I love Groklaw 99% of the time, and this is one case where the article doesn't make any sense to me. Sure, at the most abstract level, software is math and math
by alain94040 16y ago
I love Groklaw 99% of the time, and this is one case where the article doesn't make any sense to me. Sure, at the most abstract level, software is math and math is speech. But "First Amendment issues resulting from exclusive rights granted to the exercise of mathematical speech"???
The fact that running a piece of software is predictable (the same program runs the same way with the same inputs), is not a strong argument. A machine (with physical gears) will perform the same function when run in the exact same conditions. Just because one is an analog machine and one is a digital machine doesn't change the concept of invention: making something new from existing parts.
- jbri 16y agoThe predominant claim is that the machine has already been invented, and a new input to the existing machine should not be patentable.
- baddox 16y agoSome people (okay, maybe just me) aren't huge fans of intellectual property protection because, like you say, all invention/creation is making something new from existing parts. The property analogy doesn't hold up in my opinion, especially in the Information Age.
- jamii 16y agoA much stronger argument against patents, which the OP only touched upon, is the existence of FOSS. Patents exist to encourage the disclosure of ideas but FOSS already provides an excellent mechanism for this. Not only that, but the existence of software patents is damaging to the FOSS community which generally cannot afford to navigate the idea minefield. Software patents don't even require disclosing enough information to actually implement the idea so in many cases there is zero benefit to society. Judges also need to be made aware just how much of the modern information age is built upon FOSS.