3 ms·

But software also has an interface to the physical units in question, which ultimately makes it useful in the real world. Mathematical truths are not useful in

But software also has an interface to the physical units in question, which ultimately makes it useful in the real world. Mathematical truths are not useful in the real world until there is an application of a truth to a particular scenario. It is this "application + scenario" that is patented, not the mathematical truth. People are way too stuck on the "software is math" bit, it is not nearly as meaningful as people think. In fact, I think it is decidedly lacking in any meaning as everything in the universe can be abstracted to "math".

nitrogen 13y ago
In fact, I think it is decidedly lacking in any meaning as everything in the universe can be abstracted to "math". I think some would use that as justification to abolish all patents. I would love for that to happen, but pragmatically accept that such an outcome is unlikely, and in a world partially populated by devious thieves, trolls, and free-riders, potentially undesirable. I still think software is meaningfully different from any other embodiment of an algorithm, due to its self-descriptive nature. Most of the time when I write software, I feel much more that I am "creating" (copyright) rather than "inventing" (patent). I can just "tell" the computer to do something, and it does it. That doesn't work for wheels and gears. Inasmuch as there are better arguments against software patents, let's raise them as well, but I see no reason to abandon the mathematical argument entirely.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  > Most of the time when I write software, I feel much more that I am "creating" (copyright) rather than "inventing" (patent). I can just "tell" the computer to do something, and it does it. That doesn't work for wheels and gears. I think this is true for the vast majority of software, and likely for the vast majority of software people try to patent. I think you raise an interesting point regarding "telling a computer what to do" vs "inventing", and this seems like it would be a good distinction between non-patentable software and that which is patentable. There is a subset of processes that essentially involve "telling a computer what to do", and then refining those instructions until the point where the computer knows how to execute each step. Obviously, this is just a description of writing software. But this process doesn't work for all problems. There is no telling a computer to "write a symphony"--there are no standard/obvious set of refinements to that statement that will result in a working program to write a symphony. To accomplish this would require "inventing" a new algorithm (lets not go "ergo math" just yet). One would have to create a non-obvious process to govern the interactions between input sounds to create the output symphony. I don't think anyone would have a problem with saying someone "invented" a symphony writing computer program. On the other hand, the process of "one click ordering" has an obvious set of refinements from problem statement to execution such that you cannot reasonably be said to be inventing one click ordering. Of course, these are probably the two most obvious examples on either side of the debate, but I think it illustrates the fact that these decisions can be made rationally and fairly with some common sense guidelines.

nitrogen 13y ago

In fact, I think it is decidedly lacking in any meaning as everything in the universe can be abstracted to "math". I think some would use that as justification to abolish all patents. I would love for that to happen, but pragmatically accept that such an outcome is unlikely, and in a world partially populated by devious thieves, trolls, and free-riders, potentially undesirable. I still think software is meaningfully different from any other embodiment of an algorithm, due to its self-descriptive nature. Most of the time when I write software, I feel much more that I am "creating" (copyright) rather than "inventing" (patent). I can just "tell" the computer to do something, and it does it. That doesn't work for wheels and gears. Inasmuch as there are better arguments against software patents, let's raise them as well, but I see no reason to abandon the mathematical argument entirely.

hackinthebochs 13y ago
> Most of the time when I write software, I feel much more that I am "creating" (copyright) rather than "inventing" (patent). I can just "tell" the computer to do something, and it does it. That doesn't work for wheels and gears. I think this is true for the vast majority of software, and likely for the vast majority of software people try to patent. I think you raise an interesting point regarding "telling a computer what to do" vs "inventing", and this seems like it would be a good distinction between non-patentable software and that which is patentable. There is a subset of processes that essentially involve "telling a computer what to do", and then refining those instructions until the point where the computer knows how to execute each step. Obviously, this is just a description of writing software. But this process doesn't work for all problems. There is no telling a computer to "write a symphony"--there are no standard/obvious set of refinements to that statement that will result in a working program to write a symphony. To accomplish this would require "inventing" a new algorithm (lets not go "ergo math" just yet). One would have to create a non-obvious process to govern the interactions between input sounds to create the output symphony. I don't think anyone would have a problem with saying someone "invented" a symphony writing computer program. On the other hand, the process of "one click ordering" has an obvious set of refinements from problem statement to execution such that you cannot reasonably be said to be inventing one click ordering. Of course, these are probably the two most obvious examples on either side of the debate, but I think it illustrates the fact that these decisions can be made rationally and fairly with some common sense guidelines.