4 ms·

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 bec

by 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.
hackinthebochs 13y ago
Why on earth would you edit in your response rather than reply? HN's format is already bad enough for actual discussion, lets not drive it into the ground even further, OK? >You cannot evaluate the merit of patentablity without considering the benefit to society. You misunderstand my point. You are evaluating the potential patent after we have observed its impact and thus judging it as too important to patent. We do not have a crystal ball to make these sorts of judgments in general, so using that as a rationale for the particular case of FFT makes no sense. >We are sure as shit better off in a society where anyone doing ML research doesn't have to license ideas from IBM. So the new ideas that IBM created will languish in IBM research for however many years/decades then? The alternative is an environment where universities and researchers can expand on their ideas freely. When a new product is created, sure they would have to license tech from IBM, but this is preferable to total secrecy. Patents have not prevented a myriad of other inventions from impacting the world, why would you think these examples of software patents would be different?
- Crito 13y ago
  > Why on earth would you edit in your response rather than reply? HN's format is already bad enough for actual discussion, lets not drive it into the ground even further, OK? Because at the time I could not reply to your comment directly. I apologize if this has distressed you. The reality of modern mathematics research is that most ideas do not languish as trade secrets, but are instead shared and built upon. Introducing patents into this system would do nothing but harm society and enrich corporations rich enough to throw money at legions patent lawyers. We can look at examples from the past to predict future performance. The past paints a clear picture of patents being unnecessary, and a lack of them being beneficial to society.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    And the history of mathematical research was that it existed almost solely in universities. This isn't the case anymore with recent moves from companies buying up ML talent. Also, the fact that corporations apparently have to drive innovation in these areas with deep investments is exactly the purpose of patent protection. We can also see the history of patents on other things like processors and the like, which have not stifled innovation in these fields to an obvious degree--we still have core i7 processors and ipads. It's not clear that past history is on your side.

by Crito 13y ago

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.

hackinthebochs 13y ago

Why on earth would you edit in your response rather than reply? HN's format is already bad enough for actual discussion, lets not drive it into the ground even further, OK? >You cannot evaluate the merit of patentablity without considering the benefit to society. You misunderstand my point. You are evaluating the potential patent after we have observed its impact and thus judging it as too important to patent. We do not have a crystal ball to make these sorts of judgments in general, so using that as a rationale for the particular case of FFT makes no sense. >We are sure as shit better off in a society where anyone doing ML research doesn't have to license ideas from IBM. So the new ideas that IBM created will languish in IBM research for however many years/decades then? The alternative is an environment where universities and researchers can expand on their ideas freely. When a new product is created, sure they would have to license tech from IBM, but this is preferable to total secrecy. Patents have not prevented a myriad of other inventions from impacting the world, why would you think these examples of software patents would be different?

Crito 13y ago
> Why on earth would you edit in your response rather than reply? HN's format is already bad enough for actual discussion, lets not drive it into the ground even further, OK? Because at the time I could not reply to your comment directly. I apologize if this has distressed you. The reality of modern mathematics research is that most ideas do not languish as trade secrets, but are instead shared and built upon. Introducing patents into this system would do nothing but harm society and enrich corporations rich enough to throw money at legions patent lawyers. We can look at examples from the past to predict future performance. The past paints a clear picture of patents being unnecessary, and a lack of them being beneficial to society.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  And the history of mathematical research was that it existed almost solely in universities. This isn't the case anymore with recent moves from companies buying up ML talent. Also, the fact that corporations apparently have to drive innovation in these areas with deep investments is exactly the purpose of patent protection. We can also see the history of patents on other things like processors and the like, which have not stifled innovation in these fields to an obvious degree--we still have core i7 processors and ipads. It's not clear that past history is on your side.