3 ms·

Interesting: so would you consider the DFT patentable? How about other numerical algorithms? Would you agree with the decision in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G

Interesting: so would you consider the DFT patentable? How about other numerical algorithms? Would you agree with the decision in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson?

cperciva 15y ago
Obviously the DFT is not patentable any more, but yes, I see no reason why Cooley and Tukey shouldn't have been able to patent it. I think the court's decision in Gottschalk v. Benson demonstrates a level of understanding of computers typical of members of the general public in the early 1970s -- i.e., almost none at all. To say that a process carried out via software is different from a process carried out in hardware (or even more absurdly, that buying a $5 CPU transforms a process from "unpatentable software" to "patentable machine") makes no more sense than the flood of "do X over the internet" patents; hardware or software or wetware, internet or telephone network or messengers riding horses, a process is a process regardless of the components it's built on top of. (The same "(computers|internet) are magical so we need to treat them differently" thinking also results in politicians passing silly laws concerning things like "harrassing someone via the internet" where the pre-existing laws are entirely sufficient.)
- Locke1689 15y ago
  Very interesting: you make a good point about hardware. If I were to take my interpretation of software being unpatentable to the absolute extreme, I would say that the microcode in modern CISCy CPUs would also be unpatentable. This could lead to an interpretation where CPUs are also not patentable. I had an inkling feeling that the software/mathematics argument is not compelling (not because software isn't mathematics, but because the practicality of invention and patent render it different in practice), but couldn't articulate it. I still think that software patents have turned out to be dangerously unproductive in practice and so would rather see them abolished entirely than in their current form, but I think I more fully understand my position now. Thanks, Colin, for participating in this little Socratic dialog.
  - cperciva 15y ago
    I still think that software patents have turned out to be dangerously unproductive in practice and so would rather see them abolished entirely than in their current form I absolutely agree with you here. The current state is a horrible mess. Where I differ from most people here is in my belief that software patents aren't inherently a bad idea but that the problems are merely with their current implementation (and thus I'd like to see them fixed rather than abolished).

cperciva 15y ago

Obviously the DFT is not patentable any more, but yes, I see no reason why Cooley and Tukey shouldn't have been able to patent it. I think the court's decision in Gottschalk v. Benson demonstrates a level of understanding of computers typical of members of the general public in the early 1970s -- i.e., almost none at all. To say that a process carried out via software is different from a process carried out in hardware (or even more absurdly, that buying a $5 CPU transforms a process from "unpatentable software" to "patentable machine") makes no more sense than the flood of "do X over the internet" patents; hardware or software or wetware, internet or telephone network or messengers riding horses, a process is a process regardless of the components it's built on top of. (The same "(computers|internet) are magical so we need to treat them differently" thinking also results in politicians passing silly laws concerning things like "harrassing someone via the internet" where the pre-existing laws are entirely sufficient.)

Locke1689 15y ago
Very interesting: you make a good point about hardware. If I were to take my interpretation of software being unpatentable to the absolute extreme, I would say that the microcode in modern CISCy CPUs would also be unpatentable. This could lead to an interpretation where CPUs are also not patentable. I had an inkling feeling that the software/mathematics argument is not compelling (not because software isn't mathematics, but because the practicality of invention and patent render it different in practice), but couldn't articulate it. I still think that software patents have turned out to be dangerously unproductive in practice and so would rather see them abolished entirely than in their current form, but I think I more fully understand my position now. Thanks, Colin, for participating in this little Socratic dialog.
- cperciva 15y ago
  I still think that software patents have turned out to be dangerously unproductive in practice and so would rather see them abolished entirely than in their current form I absolutely agree with you here. The current state is a horrible mess. Where I differ from most people here is in my belief that software patents aren't inherently a bad idea but that the problems are merely with their current implementation (and thus I'd like to see them fixed rather than abolished).