4 ms·
> I agree with this, but my key question is: why stop at software patents? Because the key argument is that math is not patentable. Software patents are relat
by wavesquid 5y ago
> I agree with this, but my key question is: why stop at software patents?
Because the key argument is that math is not patentable.
Software patents are relatively uniquely expressible amoung patents as mathematical conjectures.
- johncolanduoni 5y agoWhy are software patents more expressible in mathematics than e.g. mechanical ones? The physical laws that govern a mechanical device are expressed mathematically.
- throwawaygh 5y agoI'm actually more ok with pure math patents than software patents. If someone constructively proves p=np then they deserve some term-limited profit taking. Getting a monopoly for being the first pos to mail some legalese to the right government office about clicking a button once to order something for delivery is both not math and not beneficial to society. The problem is software patents is not that software is math. The problem is software patents is that most patentable software is obvious to anyone without severe brain damage, and no one in the legal establishment has historically had any clue how to assess whether some idea in software is non-obvious.
- jandrewrogers 5y agoIt is trivial to prove that all patents are theoretically equivalent. There is nothing special about algorithm or software patents in this regard.