4 ms·

To head off the inevitable responses, you can describe a Wankel engine with mathematical expressions, but a Wankel engine is not itself a mathematical expressio

by Crito 13y ago

To head off the inevitable responses, you can describe a Wankel engine with mathematical expressions, but a Wankel engine is not itself a mathematical expression. Blueprints are mere descriptions of Wankel engines. However a "description" of an algorithm is the algorithm. An algorithm is a mathematical expression, not merely something that can be described with mathematical expressions. Consider my "method/process patent" for finding the length of a hypotenuse. It is easy to see why that is straight up math, and therefore should not be patentable. However just because they don't teach the notation used for expressing algorithms in primary school does not mean that it is not math. The Pythagorean Theorem is ancient so it was never in any danger, but consider FFTs. FFT algorithms were not patented, but imagine what a shame it would be if they were. These type of patents have no business existing.

hackinthebochs 13y ago
> FFT algorithms were not patented, but imagine what a shame it would be if they were. The only way this conclusion follows is if you're judging patentability of an idea by the impact the idea has had. This is plainly absurd. Lets consider the opposite, what if it were invented but the algorithm kept secret because patent protection didn't exist. Would humanity have been better off in that scenario? Processes like the FFT are exactly the types of software that are reasonable to patent, and yet you want to claim the opposite precisely because it was non-obvious and so important?
- Crito 13y ago
  FFT algorithms were not patented and were not kept secret for lack of a patent. Supposing that FFTs may have been kept secret for lack of patents is absurd because we already know what happened with FFTs without patents. Even if they had been kept secret, FFTs would have been reinvented at minimal cost to society. Had IBM patented them, society would have been fucked out of them for two decades. FFT, and things like it, are exactly the sort of software that should not be patented. Patent your minimal-clicking checkout process or bouncy kinetic scrolling all you want, I don't like those patents but they are reasonable. Those ideas aren't algorithms, they only use them; if I hold the patent for kinetic scrolling in my hand, I am not holding kinetic scrolling itself in my hand. If I hold an FFT algorithm patent in my hand, I am holding an FFT algorithm itself in my hand. Patenting algorithms themselves is patently absurd. Would you be okay with the Pythagorean Theorem being patented as well? Mathematics does not currently suffer a trade-secret problem. Introducing patents would do nothing but harm to society, while enriching corporations. What else do you believe to be patentable? Should Newton and Leibniz have escalated their conflict to an all-out patent war? Calculus is non-obvious and wildly important; would society be better off if it were patented? Or hell, maybe Feynman should have patented Feynman Diagrams! If we are patenting mathematical expressions, why not throw in novel and useful notations for mathematical expressions as well! Any mathematician, physicist, or engineer will have to join the Mathematics Patents Experts Group in order to get any useful work done without being sued into homelessness, but at least all of those people won't be keeping their creations and discoveries secret, right? Edit: Response: Patents are for the benefit of society, not for the benefit of the creators. You cannot evaluate the merit of patentablity without considering the benefit to society. We are sure as shit better off in a society where anyone doing ML research doesn't have to license ideas from IBM.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    So your view its "absurd" to consider what would have happened had a plausible scenario occurred to discover the implications? Clearly this is nonsense. Moving on. >FFT, and things like it, are exactly the sort of software that should not be patented. Again, you are judging patentability by the impact of the idea. This is nonsense. For every idea worth patenting that has been invented, the world would be better off if everyone could use that idea unencumbered. This is a tautology. The interesting question is: how many of those ideas would remain trade secrets if they weren't patentable? This is the meaningful question here. Had IBM chosen to keep it secret (and perhaps it would have been a smart business decision to do so), the world would be decidedly worse off. If they had patented it, the world would be better off compared to the world where that invention was kept a trade secret. This is the meaningful conclusion to be drawn from the FFT scenario. So you don't like hypotheticals? Fine--lets consider Watson. How it works is currently a trade secret. Is the world better off for them keeping it a secret or publicizing and patenting it? I'll let you decide that one.
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      Cooley and Tukey didn't so much invent the FFT as rediscover it. The earliest description was (as usual) buried in one of Carl Friedrich Gauss's notebooks. By the 1960s, the algorithm's time had come. It is inconceivable that it would have remained obscure for much longer -- patent or no patent, trade secret or no trade secret. Software simply does not work that way.
      - hackinthebochs 13y ago
        Yes, lets avoid the interesting discussion with irrelevant and uninteresting tangential points.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Its not just whether these inventions would be kept trade secrets. In the world where you deliver physical products to people, its very easy for a company in China to just reverse engineer it then undercut you because they don't pay for R&D. In that space, a lot of these inventions just wouldn't happen because companies wouldn't bother sinking a ton of money into them.
nitrogen 13y ago
FFT algorithms were not patented, but imagine what a shame it would be if they were. Sadly: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fft+patent https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fft+patent
- Crito 13y ago
  Lamentable, but it could have been much worse: http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/usptovsmath.html http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/usptovsmath.html

by Crito 13y ago

hackinthebochs 13y ago

> FFT algorithms were not patented, but imagine what a shame it would be if they were. The only way this conclusion follows is if you're judging patentability of an idea by the impact the idea has had. This is plainly absurd. Lets consider the opposite, what if it were invented but the algorithm kept secret because patent protection didn't exist. Would humanity have been better off in that scenario? Processes like the FFT are exactly the types of software that are reasonable to patent, and yet you want to claim the opposite precisely because it was non-obvious and so important?

Crito 13y ago
FFT algorithms were not patented and were not kept secret for lack of a patent. Supposing that FFTs may have been kept secret for lack of patents is absurd because we already know what happened with FFTs without patents. Even if they had been kept secret, FFTs would have been reinvented at minimal cost to society. Had IBM patented them, society would have been fucked out of them for two decades. FFT, and things like it, are exactly the sort of software that should not be patented. Patent your minimal-clicking checkout process or bouncy kinetic scrolling all you want, I don't like those patents but they are reasonable. Those ideas aren't algorithms, they only use them; if I hold the patent for kinetic scrolling in my hand, I am not holding kinetic scrolling itself in my hand. If I hold an FFT algorithm patent in my hand, I am holding an FFT algorithm itself in my hand. Patenting algorithms themselves is patently absurd. Would you be okay with the Pythagorean Theorem being patented as well? Mathematics does not currently suffer a trade-secret problem. Introducing patents would do nothing but harm to society, while enriching corporations. What else do you believe to be patentable? Should Newton and Leibniz have escalated their conflict to an all-out patent war? Calculus is non-obvious and wildly important; would society be better off if it were patented? Or hell, maybe Feynman should have patented Feynman Diagrams! If we are patenting mathematical expressions, why not throw in novel and useful notations for mathematical expressions as well! Any mathematician, physicist, or engineer will have to join the Mathematics Patents Experts Group in order to get any useful work done without being sued into homelessness, but at least all of those people won't be keeping their creations and discoveries secret, right? Edit: Response: Patents are for the benefit of society, not for the benefit of the creators. You cannot evaluate the merit of patentablity without considering the benefit to society. We are sure as shit better off in a society where anyone doing ML research doesn't have to license ideas from IBM.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  So your view its "absurd" to consider what would have happened had a plausible scenario occurred to discover the implications? Clearly this is nonsense. Moving on. >FFT, and things like it, are exactly the sort of software that should not be patented. Again, you are judging patentability by the impact of the idea. This is nonsense. For every idea worth patenting that has been invented, the world would be better off if everyone could use that idea unencumbered. This is a tautology. The interesting question is: how many of those ideas would remain trade secrets if they weren't patentable? This is the meaningful question here. Had IBM chosen to keep it secret (and perhaps it would have been a smart business decision to do so), the world would be decidedly worse off. If they had patented it, the world would be better off compared to the world where that invention was kept a trade secret. This is the meaningful conclusion to be drawn from the FFT scenario. So you don't like hypotheticals? Fine--lets consider Watson. How it works is currently a trade secret. Is the world better off for them keeping it a secret or publicizing and patenting it? I'll let you decide that one.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    Cooley and Tukey didn't so much invent the FFT as rediscover it. The earliest description was (as usual) buried in one of Carl Friedrich Gauss's notebooks. By the 1960s, the algorithm's time had come. It is inconceivable that it would have remained obscure for much longer -- patent or no patent, trade secret or no trade secret. Software simply does not work that way.
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      Yes, lets avoid the interesting discussion with irrelevant and uninteresting tangential points.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Its not just whether these inventions would be kept trade secrets. In the world where you deliver physical products to people, its very easy for a company in China to just reverse engineer it then undercut you because they don't pay for R&D. In that space, a lot of these inventions just wouldn't happen because companies wouldn't bother sinking a ton of money into them.

nitrogen 13y ago

FFT algorithms were not patented, but imagine what a shame it would be if they were. Sadly: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fft+patent https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fft+patent

Crito 13y ago
Lamentable, but it could have been much worse: http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/usptovsmath.html http://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/usptovsmath.html