4 ms·

We had a patent officer visit our senior design class in engineering school and this question came up. We were all of the opinion that algorithms were purely m

We had a patent officer visit our senior design class in engineering school and this question came up. We were all of the opinion that algorithms were purely mathematical expressions, as Dr. Knuth insists in the letter you cited. I don't recall the patent officer ever giving a precise answer on the subject, but I do recall considerable dancing as he attempted to explain why math isn't always math to a room full of engineers.

beambot 15y ago
Actually, I ran into a relevant discussion on the topic with a few choice quotes (from [1]): When filing an algorithm patent, patent lawyer will tell you to remove every instance of the word "algorithm" and replace it with some other word. This seems to be necessary for getting the patent through. [...] at some point you may find yourself pulling diagrams from thin air and thinking "why am I doing this?" (but then remembering that it's because of the bonus) The complacency in the latter quote is (probably) why so many well-meaning engineers inadvertently exacerbate the problem. [1] http://yaroslavvb.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-to-patent-algorithm-in-us.html http://yaroslavvb.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-to-patent-algorit...
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  Having worked with a patent attorney in the past, I can give you specific wording examples. The software patents I've seen stated the claims in three different ways, to take advantage of different patentable areas: "A method for $foo", "A system for $foo" (as in a computer system), and "A computer program product for $foo". Those same software patents also included, in addition to all the illustrations of the algorithm, a diagram of a stack of computer discs capable of containing the program, in order to demonstrate that (at least in some embodiments) the patent actually covered a physical thing rather than an algorithm.

beambot 15y ago

Actually, I ran into a relevant discussion on the topic with a few choice quotes (from [1]): When filing an algorithm patent, patent lawyer will tell you to remove every instance of the word "algorithm" and replace it with some other word. This seems to be necessary for getting the patent through. [...] at some point you may find yourself pulling diagrams from thin air and thinking "why am I doing this?" (but then remembering that it's because of the bonus) The complacency in the latter quote is (probably) why so many well-meaning engineers inadvertently exacerbate the problem. [1] http://yaroslavvb.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-to-patent-algorithm-in-us.html http://yaroslavvb.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-to-patent-algorit...

JoshTriplett 15y ago
Having worked with a patent attorney in the past, I can give you specific wording examples. The software patents I've seen stated the claims in three different ways, to take advantage of different patentable areas: "A method for $foo", "A system for $foo" (as in a computer system), and "A computer program product for $foo". Those same software patents also included, in addition to all the illustrations of the algorithm, a diagram of a stack of computer discs capable of containing the program, in order to demonstrate that (at least in some embodiments) the patent actually covered a physical thing rather than an algorithm.