3 ms·

I'm surprised the EFF supports software patents... They're just mathematical constructs, I'm not even sure how they're patentable.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- jimktrains2 14y ago
  EDIT: The original post seems to be deleted. Here it is so that my answer makes sense (I don't believe in deleting my own posts) >Serious question, since I see this said a lot, but isn't that true of anything other than process patents? I'm hard-pressed to think of a patent in any other engineering discipline that at the end of the day doesn't boil down to math. Here's how I look at it: If someone come up with a better car engine, they can patent it because it's a design and application of math. It's not like they patented the Carnot Cycle and precluded ANYONE from ever building ANY internal combustion engine. It's a specific design, not a general formula. Patenting an algorithm, which is a purely mathematical construct, precludes any work done in the field. Patenting the design an ASIC that implements the algorithm would be the closest example I can think of to patenting an engine based on the Carnot cycle (and I'd be fine with a patent on your ASIC design).
- tikhonj 14y ago
  It's not quite the same. For other patents, your invention needs to be some device or method for doing something. Now, this invention was obviously designed with math, but only the end result is patentable. That is, if you design some novel tire (for example), only the itself is protected--the math used to get the design in the first place is not protected. If somebody used the same math to come up with a different sort of tire, they would not have to license your patent. With software patents, there is no device or method. You're taking some math and patenting it just because it's being used on a general computing device. The program itself is not what's protected by the patent--it's the actual math the program is isomorphic to that's protected. Somebody could write a completely new program using the same mathematical foundations and it would infringe on the software patent. So yes, most patents are going to boil down to math one way or the other. The difference is that software patents protect the math directly where other patents only protect some specific device or invention.
kkowalczyk 14y ago
EFF doesn't support patents. What they try to do is to gather support for the reform of patent system via http://defendinnovation.org http://defendinnovation.org. What some guy wants is for EFF to instead go for the kill (abolition of patent system). Why does he feel that he should dictate what EFF does? I don't know. Did he provide any reasoning as to why EFF should do what he wants as opposed to what they are actually doing? Not really. Why he started a petition vs. writing a blog post describing his displeasure? Beats me. To recap: EFF is doing something about broken patent system. They started http://defendinnovation.org http://defendinnovation.org and are trying to gather support for patent system reform and actually make this happen. Some guy spent 5 minutes creating a petition asking EFF to drop what they're doing and do something else instead. Because he clearly knows betters.
- jimktrains2 14y ago
  Point number one would only exist if they supported software patents. Also why was my original post downvoted? I thought it added to the discussion.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jimktrains2 14y ago
EDIT: The original post seems to be deleted. Here it is so that my answer makes sense (I don't believe in deleting my own posts) >Serious question, since I see this said a lot, but isn't that true of anything other than process patents? I'm hard-pressed to think of a patent in any other engineering discipline that at the end of the day doesn't boil down to math. Here's how I look at it: If someone come up with a better car engine, they can patent it because it's a design and application of math. It's not like they patented the Carnot Cycle and precluded ANYONE from ever building ANY internal combustion engine. It's a specific design, not a general formula. Patenting an algorithm, which is a purely mathematical construct, precludes any work done in the field. Patenting the design an ASIC that implements the algorithm would be the closest example I can think of to patenting an engine based on the Carnot cycle (and I'd be fine with a patent on your ASIC design).
tikhonj 14y ago
It's not quite the same. For other patents, your invention needs to be some device or method for doing something. Now, this invention was obviously designed with math, but only the end result is patentable. That is, if you design some novel tire (for example), only the itself is protected--the math used to get the design in the first place is not protected. If somebody used the same math to come up with a different sort of tire, they would not have to license your patent. With software patents, there is no device or method. You're taking some math and patenting it just because it's being used on a general computing device. The program itself is not what's protected by the patent--it's the actual math the program is isomorphic to that's protected. Somebody could write a completely new program using the same mathematical foundations and it would infringe on the software patent. So yes, most patents are going to boil down to math one way or the other. The difference is that software patents protect the math directly where other patents only protect some specific device or invention.

kkowalczyk 14y ago

EFF doesn't support patents. What they try to do is to gather support for the reform of patent system via http://defendinnovation.org http://defendinnovation.org. What some guy wants is for EFF to instead go for the kill (abolition of patent system). Why does he feel that he should dictate what EFF does? I don't know. Did he provide any reasoning as to why EFF should do what he wants as opposed to what they are actually doing? Not really. Why he started a petition vs. writing a blog post describing his displeasure? Beats me. To recap: EFF is doing something about broken patent system. They started http://defendinnovation.org http://defendinnovation.org and are trying to gather support for patent system reform and actually make this happen. Some guy spent 5 minutes creating a petition asking EFF to drop what they're doing and do something else instead. Because he clearly knows betters.

jimktrains2 14y ago
Point number one would only exist if they supported software patents. Also why was my original post downvoted? I thought it added to the discussion.