4 ms·

My understanding (IANAL) is that although maths are not patentable, the use of maths is – much as science is not patentable, but the use of science (technology)

My understanding (IANAL) is that although maths are not patentable, the use of maths is – much as science is not patentable, but the use of science (technology) is.

ChrisLomont 6y ago
Exactly this - otherwise inventions in physics would not be patentable (such as the laser - a purely theoretical construct long before it was engineered, same as the transistor), or chemicals (chemistry follows from physics, which is made of math..) And on and on. Using math to engineer solutions to problems is patentable.
- gaius_baltar 6y ago
  > chemistry follows from physics, which is made of math Is that a reference to XKCD #435 ? ;)
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  When you patent a laser, the patent doesn't stop someone from calculating the laser's results. With math, you are prohibited from making certain calculations; very different.
  - vulcan01 6y ago
    Again, IANAL. But my understanding is using ideas in a patent for "experimental purposes" is legally protected: https://nysstlc.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NYSTAR-The-Experimental-Use-Exemptions-to-Patent-Infringement-Fall-2005.pdf https://nysstlc.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NYSTAR-Th...
  - darawk 6y ago
    You aren't prohibited from doing the calculations per se. You are prohibited from doing them for a particular purpose, specifically video playback, in this case. If you just want to sit down with a pencil and paper and calculate H264 by yourself, there's nothing illegal about that. It only becomes illegal when you embed it into a video player.
dclowd9901 6y ago
Right, but encoding video is literally just pushing numbers through a function, is it not?
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  It's more concrete than that there's an input, from a computer, with some sort of physical storage, and an output, again with some storage, that ultimately is for viewing. The goal is to do stuff with those numbers outside of the computer, ie create light patterns on a viewing medium.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    > It's more concrete than that there's an input, from a computer, with some sort of physical storage, and an output, again with some storage, that ultimately is for viewing. None of which is novel, or even directly related to the subject of the patent. The patent isn't about the input mechanism, the computing hardware, the storage media, or the display tech. It's about the abstract math that is carried out mechanically by these existing computing elements. Evaluating a mathematical formula and visualizing the results as a grid of colored squares—all by hand—should never be found to infringe on anyone's patent. (This appears to be relatively uncontroversial.) Doing the same, only faster thanks to the aid of a computer, should be similarly exempt from all patent infringement claims. The patent doesn't cover the computer, which already existed. All that's left is the math.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      I have a lot of sympathy with your position and conclusion. Really I was trying to explain the position applied, it's not what I would do. Ultimately, legislatures (or those who control them) want to encourage developments that lead to faster, cheaper (less energy intensive) methods of encryption and encoding and so the law will be wiggled until it fits this need. Hence in Europe we effectively have, AIUI, a variation of the long-standing "technical effect" requirement where if the development can be concretised it can be patented. Things are slightly tighter in UK law and much looser in USA; I don't follow patent law in other countries.

My understanding (IANAL) is that although maths are not patentable, the use of maths is – much as science is not patentable, but the use of science (technology) is.

ChrisLomont 6y ago

Exactly this - otherwise inventions in physics would not be patentable (such as the laser - a purely theoretical construct long before it was engineered, same as the transistor), or chemicals (chemistry follows from physics, which is made of math..) And on and on. Using math to engineer solutions to problems is patentable.

gaius_baltar 6y ago
> chemistry follows from physics, which is made of math Is that a reference to XKCD #435 ? ;)
Dylan16807 6y ago
When you patent a laser, the patent doesn't stop someone from calculating the laser's results. With math, you are prohibited from making certain calculations; very different.
- vulcan01 6y ago
  Again, IANAL. But my understanding is using ideas in a patent for "experimental purposes" is legally protected: https://nysstlc.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NYSTAR-The-Experimental-Use-Exemptions-to-Patent-Infringement-Fall-2005.pdf https://nysstlc.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NYSTAR-Th...
- darawk 6y ago
  You aren't prohibited from doing the calculations per se. You are prohibited from doing them for a particular purpose, specifically video playback, in this case. If you just want to sit down with a pencil and paper and calculate H264 by yourself, there's nothing illegal about that. It only becomes illegal when you embed it into a video player.

dclowd9901 6y ago

Right, but encoding video is literally just pushing numbers through a function, is it not?

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
It's more concrete than that there's an input, from a computer, with some sort of physical storage, and an output, again with some storage, that ultimately is for viewing. The goal is to do stuff with those numbers outside of the computer, ie create light patterns on a viewing medium.
- nybble41 6y ago
  > It's more concrete than that there's an input, from a computer, with some sort of physical storage, and an output, again with some storage, that ultimately is for viewing. None of which is novel, or even directly related to the subject of the patent. The patent isn't about the input mechanism, the computing hardware, the storage media, or the display tech. It's about the abstract math that is carried out mechanically by these existing computing elements. Evaluating a mathematical formula and visualizing the results as a grid of colored squares—all by hand—should never be found to infringe on anyone's patent. (This appears to be relatively uncontroversial.) Doing the same, only faster thanks to the aid of a computer, should be similarly exempt from all patent infringement claims. The patent doesn't cover the computer, which already existed. All that's left is the math.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    I have a lot of sympathy with your position and conclusion. Really I was trying to explain the position applied, it's not what I would do. Ultimately, legislatures (or those who control them) want to encourage developments that lead to faster, cheaper (less energy intensive) methods of encryption and encoding and so the law will be wiggled until it fits this need. Hence in Europe we effectively have, AIUI, a variation of the long-standing "technical effect" requirement where if the development can be concretised it can be patented. Things are slightly tighter in UK law and much looser in USA; I don't follow patent law in other countries.