5 ms·

> The fact that the patents still stand would indicate that they are more than just maths. I insist that the fact that the patents still stand is rather an ind

> The fact that the patents still stand would indicate that they are more than just maths. I insist that the fact that the patents still stand is rather an indication of the systemic failure of the court system to enforce the non-patentability of what is ultimately still purely mathematical operations. Sure, any patent-able invention uses math. That's a distraction. These patents are on the formulae (the data transforms) and their use itself. You're on the right track pointing out that it would be ridiculous to patent the discrete Fourier transform. These kind of mathematical discoveries should not be encumbered, they should be free for anyone to use and implement.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
This is my personal opinion and in no way relates to my employment: I rather think that the courts have enforced the line the legislators endorse, which supports their ends of promoting industry: It's not a mistake of the court system, inventions that apply maths to achieve technical gains are patentable and maths itself remains un-patentable. The courts seem largely to properly discern where that line lies. Developing maths that saves bandwidth, storage, and energy, for example, is beneficial and countries use the patent system to encourage that.
arp242 6y ago
If I invent a new type of chair that can be stable with two legs, then the way this operates is essentially just a mathematical formula, no? No one would challenge that this would be patentable, and any patent application would describe the mathematics of it, and the usage of this mathematics would be covered in the patent. I don't really like patents in general, but I don't really see this sharp distinction to be honest and I've always felt that the case against software patents in particular as a special case was rather weak.
- liminvorous 6y ago
  A chair is a physical object that may happen to have been designed using maths, a video codec is a set of instructions for what maths to do on your machine that does maths to make it play video.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

This is my personal opinion and in no way relates to my employment: I rather think that the courts have enforced the line the legislators endorse, which supports their ends of promoting industry: It's not a mistake of the court system, inventions that apply maths to achieve technical gains are patentable and maths itself remains un-patentable. The courts seem largely to properly discern where that line lies. Developing maths that saves bandwidth, storage, and energy, for example, is beneficial and countries use the patent system to encourage that.

arp242 6y ago

If I invent a new type of chair that can be stable with two legs, then the way this operates is essentially just a mathematical formula, no? No one would challenge that this would be patentable, and any patent application would describe the mathematics of it, and the usage of this mathematics would be covered in the patent. I don't really like patents in general, but I don't really see this sharp distinction to be honest and I've always felt that the case against software patents in particular as a special case was rather weak.

liminvorous 6y ago
A chair is a physical object that may happen to have been designed using maths, a video codec is a set of instructions for what maths to do on your machine that does maths to make it play video.