5 ms·

From the tilt of your comment, I assume you think that a properly constituted, wise SCOTUS would rule software patents unconstitutional, or more likely in viola

From the tilt of your comment, I assume you think that a properly constituted, wise SCOTUS would rule software patents unconstitutional, or more likely in violation of statute. What's the short case for that? I don't see how my black box with some novel capability becomes un-patent-worthy as soon as I replace the gears and levers inside with a digital computer.

BrandonY 13y ago
I'm certainly no lawyer, but for me the argument goes like this: We all agree that math isn't patentable, so let's assume that. As math is not patentable, no mathematical theorem, proof, or function is patentable. All processes that exist entirely in software are representable as a series of mathematical operations. Therefore, software methods are math. As math isn't patentable and software is math, software must also not be patentable.
- rralian 13y ago
  I'm probably out of my depth here, but isn't everything math? Pretty much all science boils down to math. All physics and chemistry can be explained (and predicted) in mathematical terms. But I would think some new substance or process would be the "good" kind of patents that most of us want, even if they were ultimately derived from a working knowledge of math. If that isn't all just math, then neither is an instance of a program running on my computer.
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    Everything is described by math. There is a difference between the calculation and the thing. You don't get any energy by using E=MC^2 to calculate the amount of energy contained in a pound of Uranium. You do get energy if you build a fission reactor that will actually convert the mass into energy.
  - Natsu 13y ago
    Math is information, as is software. Naturally, so are numbers--read about Godel numbering for the beautiful equivalence there. While many physical things can carry information, I have yet to see a good argument that they are information, though a great many things can be made to carry information in one way or another. Granted, I suppose there are some who think that we might all live inside a computer simulation, but let's not go there.
    - rralian 13y ago
      I see what you mean, but I'm not necessarily moved by it. You can choose to describe software as nothing but information. Or you could describe software as it's own entity, which can carry or store information.
      - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
        Then you're abandoning the argument that "everything is math" and just claiming that software isn't math either. That's a whole different claim. It's also a lot harder (perhaps provably impossible) to defend. There is provably nothing you can do in software that you can't do, much more slowly, with pencil and paper. The only way software can be anything other than math and calculation is to define it as something other than software, and what does that actually buy you? If we make that which you define as software patentable, but make what is commonly known to everyone else as software unpatentable, is that a satisfactory outcome to you?
        rralian 13y ago
        I'm not arguing as a means to an end, I would prefer to get rid of software patents. I can't really parse your last question, since we're talking about the same software, but keeping the status quo would be unsatisfactory to me. I just think it's somewhat arbitrary to say that software is nothing but information. Yes, you can state that, and we could all agree to honor that distinction as such, but I think there's nothing a priori about it. Sure, you could work out software problems on a chalkboard, but I would say doing so is different than creating a piece of software that does the same thing... in the same way that a story that is told verbally from one person to another (and not stored say, via video) is different than a book.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  "All processes that exist entirely in software are representable as a series of mathematical operations. Therefore, software methods are math" This is where your argument breaks down. This is not logically sound. Just because something is representable in some other form, does not mean it is that other form. The interactions of subatomic particles can be represented by a series of feynman diagrams. It does not follow that interactions of subatomic particles are actually feynman diagrams. If you want more examples, there are plenty of things in physics that are representable as interactions and models that are provably do not occur that way in the physical world :) instead of "are representable by a series of mathematical operations", you want to say "are in fact, a series of mathematical operations " Even then, the argument doesn't hold because they aren't patenting processes in software. They are patenting processes (which is valid), particular instances of which happen to be represented in software. There are good arguments for why software patents should not exist. Most of them deal with abstractness of the processes or claims, not "mathiness".
  - Natsu 13y ago
    > It does not follow that interactions of subatomic particles are actually feynman diagrams. Right, there you can say "ceci n'est pas une pipe" and be right. The problem with this is that software is, literally, information. And all types of information are equivalent. It's true that information requires a carrier (language, memory, hardware, whatever), but that doesn't mean it should be conflated with it. With math, numbers are no different than any other form of precise information. Then, when someone tries to tell us that math isn't just numbers, were going to have to introduce them to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_numbering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_numbering But wait, software is just numbers too, right? Right, which is why people can make this: http://us.metamath.org/ http://us.metamath.org/ P.S. While you're over there, don't miss the 2+2=4 trivia: http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia "We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two, because one and one are two. We are finding that we must learn a great deal more about 'and.'" — Sir Arthur Eddington
WildUtah 13y ago
There are so many conclusive arguments against software patents that the result is overdetermined. Nevertheless, lining the pockets of the patent bar is likely to overcome any quality of argument as long as computer programmers have even less Washington influence than illegal alien terrorists. I'll give a few arguments, but first let's consider yours. Black boxes are never patentable. The concept of patents is that you reveal exactly how your process works and you get a limited monopoly on the totally new and non-obvious bits of your process for the public benefit. It always matters how the process works inside. That's the theory anyway; the patent bar loves to rob the public by cheating the bargain. 1. Computer programmers are overwhelmingly against software patents. For the first time in my life I see educated people advocating the abolition of the entire patent system, even at the cost of life saving drugs, just to get patents out of computer software (John Siracusa, to cite a public personality, but there are many, many more who agree). Programmers hate patents in their industry by something like ten or twenty to one. 2. Software patents are harmful to innovation. They created almost all the modern patent trolling crisis. They shutdown startups and innovative projects and block open source. They promote vendor lock-in and empower giants over small companies with new ideas. 3. Software is math and both math and mental processes are SCOTUS identified ineligible subject matter. 4. The quality of software patents we see is uniformly bad. None of Apple's, Motorola's, Oracle's, Samsung's, or Microsoft's recent patents in litigation or threats thereof have contributed anything to the public. The billion dollar patents from Eolas and NTP were pure garbage. None of the troll patents we hear about all the time ever contributed anything to our art or even constitute inventions at all. Bilsky, Ultramercial, and Alice are all ludicrously abusive. Whole teams of programmers could work for decades searching without finding a single plausibly valid and useful patent in their field. 5. When we bought our computers, ever since the first general purpose computers in the 1940s, we have done so expecting to run programs on them. Using a machine for its expected and customary use is not subject to any patents beyond the patents on the machine itself. Running any program at all is the expected use of a computer, at least for programmers who write their own programs, so any program running on a computer is automatically in the prior art. In fact, we already have a list of every program our computers are expected to run and it includes every program any computer can run. We haven't printed the list out (not enough paper), but we know exactly how to produce any part of the list for your pleasure on demand. Now the patent bar wants to tell us that programs we expected to run, that are the conventional use of our machines, and that have been on our list since the 1940s are their brilliant inventions and they are going to prohibit us from running them. No thanks.

BrandonY 13y ago

I'm certainly no lawyer, but for me the argument goes like this: We all agree that math isn't patentable, so let's assume that. As math is not patentable, no mathematical theorem, proof, or function is patentable. All processes that exist entirely in software are representable as a series of mathematical operations. Therefore, software methods are math. As math isn't patentable and software is math, software must also not be patentable.

rralian 13y ago
I'm probably out of my depth here, but isn't everything math? Pretty much all science boils down to math. All physics and chemistry can be explained (and predicted) in mathematical terms. But I would think some new substance or process would be the "good" kind of patents that most of us want, even if they were ultimately derived from a working knowledge of math. If that isn't all just math, then neither is an instance of a program running on my computer.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  Everything is described by math. There is a difference between the calculation and the thing. You don't get any energy by using E=MC^2 to calculate the amount of energy contained in a pound of Uranium. You do get energy if you build a fission reactor that will actually convert the mass into energy.
- Natsu 13y ago
  Math is information, as is software. Naturally, so are numbers--read about Godel numbering for the beautiful equivalence there. While many physical things can carry information, I have yet to see a good argument that they are information, though a great many things can be made to carry information in one way or another. Granted, I suppose there are some who think that we might all live inside a computer simulation, but let's not go there.
  - rralian 13y ago
    I see what you mean, but I'm not necessarily moved by it. You can choose to describe software as nothing but information. Or you could describe software as it's own entity, which can carry or store information.
    - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
      Then you're abandoning the argument that "everything is math" and just claiming that software isn't math either. That's a whole different claim. It's also a lot harder (perhaps provably impossible) to defend. There is provably nothing you can do in software that you can't do, much more slowly, with pencil and paper. The only way software can be anything other than math and calculation is to define it as something other than software, and what does that actually buy you? If we make that which you define as software patentable, but make what is commonly known to everyone else as software unpatentable, is that a satisfactory outcome to you?
      - rralian 13y ago
        I'm not arguing as a means to an end, I would prefer to get rid of software patents. I can't really parse your last question, since we're talking about the same software, but keeping the status quo would be unsatisfactory to me. I just think it's somewhat arbitrary to say that software is nothing but information. Yes, you can state that, and we could all agree to honor that distinction as such, but I think there's nothing a priori about it. Sure, you could work out software problems on a chalkboard, but I would say doing so is different than creating a piece of software that does the same thing... in the same way that a story that is told verbally from one person to another (and not stored say, via video) is different than a book.
DannyBee 13y ago
"All processes that exist entirely in software are representable as a series of mathematical operations. Therefore, software methods are math" This is where your argument breaks down. This is not logically sound. Just because something is representable in some other form, does not mean it is that other form. The interactions of subatomic particles can be represented by a series of feynman diagrams. It does not follow that interactions of subatomic particles are actually feynman diagrams. If you want more examples, there are plenty of things in physics that are representable as interactions and models that are provably do not occur that way in the physical world :) instead of "are representable by a series of mathematical operations", you want to say "are in fact, a series of mathematical operations " Even then, the argument doesn't hold because they aren't patenting processes in software. They are patenting processes (which is valid), particular instances of which happen to be represented in software. There are good arguments for why software patents should not exist. Most of them deal with abstractness of the processes or claims, not "mathiness".
- Natsu 13y ago
  > It does not follow that interactions of subatomic particles are actually feynman diagrams. Right, there you can say "ceci n'est pas une pipe" and be right. The problem with this is that software is, literally, information. And all types of information are equivalent. It's true that information requires a carrier (language, memory, hardware, whatever), but that doesn't mean it should be conflated with it. With math, numbers are no different than any other form of precise information. Then, when someone tries to tell us that math isn't just numbers, were going to have to introduce them to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_numbering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_numbering But wait, software is just numbers too, right? Right, which is why people can make this: http://us.metamath.org/ http://us.metamath.org/ P.S. While you're over there, don't miss the 2+2=4 trivia: http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html#trivia "We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two, because one and one are two. We are finding that we must learn a great deal more about 'and.'" — Sir Arthur Eddington

WildUtah 13y ago

There are so many conclusive arguments against software patents that the result is overdetermined. Nevertheless, lining the pockets of the patent bar is likely to overcome any quality of argument as long as computer programmers have even less Washington influence than illegal alien terrorists. I'll give a few arguments, but first let's consider yours. Black boxes are never patentable. The concept of patents is that you reveal exactly how your process works and you get a limited monopoly on the totally new and non-obvious bits of your process for the public benefit. It always matters how the process works inside. That's the theory anyway; the patent bar loves to rob the public by cheating the bargain. 1. Computer programmers are overwhelmingly against software patents. For the first time in my life I see educated people advocating the abolition of the entire patent system, even at the cost of life saving drugs, just to get patents out of computer software (John Siracusa, to cite a public personality, but there are many, many more who agree). Programmers hate patents in their industry by something like ten or twenty to one. 2. Software patents are harmful to innovation. They created almost all the modern patent trolling crisis. They shutdown startups and innovative projects and block open source. They promote vendor lock-in and empower giants over small companies with new ideas. 3. Software is math and both math and mental processes are SCOTUS identified ineligible subject matter. 4. The quality of software patents we see is uniformly bad. None of Apple's, Motorola's, Oracle's, Samsung's, or Microsoft's recent patents in litigation or threats thereof have contributed anything to the public. The billion dollar patents from Eolas and NTP were pure garbage. None of the troll patents we hear about all the time ever contributed anything to our art or even constitute inventions at all. Bilsky, Ultramercial, and Alice are all ludicrously abusive. Whole teams of programmers could work for decades searching without finding a single plausibly valid and useful patent in their field. 5. When we bought our computers, ever since the first general purpose computers in the 1940s, we have done so expecting to run programs on them. Using a machine for its expected and customary use is not subject to any patents beyond the patents on the machine itself. Running any program at all is the expected use of a computer, at least for programmers who write their own programs, so any program running on a computer is automatically in the prior art. In fact, we already have a list of every program our computers are expected to run and it includes every program any computer can run. We haven't printed the list out (not enough paper), but we know exactly how to produce any part of the list for your pleasure on demand. Now the patent bar wants to tell us that programs we expected to run, that are the conventional use of our machines, and that have been on our list since the 1940s are their brilliant inventions and they are going to prohibit us from running them. No thanks.