7 ms·
Letter to the Patent Office From Professor Donald Knuth (1994)
- dang 12y agoWe changed the url from http://progfree.org/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt http://progfree.org/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt, which doesn't mention the date.
- hbogert 12y agoExcellent example of the lawyer's defense patent. I'm often in discussion with engineers from other fields taking patents as some holy grail. I now have some ammo to show that patents are not a generalized solution. I do have one remark, Knuth refers to algorithms as fundamental building blocks, but as every programmer knows - we like to abstract upon abstractions making solutions higher level, so when does something stop being a building block and where does something start to be a patentable product.
- simonh 12y agoIt doesn't. It's building blocks all the way up. That's why I don't think that software should be patentable.
- m_mueller 12y agoExactly. That's what Copyright is for, a perfectly fine way of protecting a software developer's work.
- jsmeaton 12y agoI agree with you, but what about copyrightable? I don't think that "swipe gestures with 3 fingers in a diagonal motion" should be patentable. But I don't think blatant ripoffs of entire applications should be protected or encouraged either.
- Joeri 12y agoIf you copy the code, the specific artwork or the resulting binary, you're copying the expression, which is covered by copyright. If you copy the specific ornamental design, you may violate a design patent, if one was registered. If you copy the name or logo, or create one that is confusing, you may violate trademark law, if one was registered. Software patents don't protect someone against blatant rip-offs of their product, those other laws do that. They merely prevent good ideas from disseminating quickly. The software patent system acts in exact opposition to its stated aim: encouraging innovation.
- higherpurpose 12y ago'If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.' Mr. Gates worried that 'some large company will patent some obvious thing' and use the patent to 'take as much of our profits as they want.' Bill Gates in the early 90's [1]. Pretty similar line of thought, no? Unfortunately, now Bill Gates is a defender of Intellectual Ventures [2] and Microsoft extracts billions of dollars every year from open source software by asserting "infringement" on such software patents that should've never been granted, and doing the very thing that Gates was condemning when Microsoft wasn't in the abuser's position. [1] - http://www.networkworld.com/article/2230877/microsoft-subnet/microsoft-was-against-software-patents-before-it-was-for-them.html http://www.networkworld.com/article/2230877/microsoft-subnet... [2] - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/bill-gates-still-helping-known-patent-trolls-obtain-more-patents/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/bill-gates-still-...
- dredmorbius 12y agoPatent trolling is the final stage of the evolution of a software or tech company, before dissolution or death-merger. E.g., Sun, SCO, Wang.
- pistle 12y agoApple, Google, Facebook subsidiaries, Samsung, etc.
- dredmorbius 12y agoI wouldn't consider those to be dead or dying. Yet.
- frozenport 12y agoA distinction should be made between buyers and sellers. As we understand the trolls buy the stuff.
- frandroid 12y ago
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- pjmorris 12y agoHe did invent Tex (including a line-breaking algorithm many consider important), many credit him with the foundations of algorithmic analysis, and string searching (Knuth-Pratt-Morris) has many commercial implications. I think he's done the requisite share of invention to have a perspective here.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- PythonicAlpha 12y agoBut Knuth did an excellent job in writing down basic algorithms. And without those the other "inventions" would not been possible. I am also not sure, if Knuth himself invented some basic algorithms for which he does not get credit, because they are not patented. Guess, what would have been happened, when he had patented Tex. I am not sure, if not some of our todays software would be infringing. This is not a mindless down-vote, but I must shake my head, about your ignorance.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 12y agoYes, maybe he too would be biased by profiting from them. That's not an argument for patents, though.
- jokoon 12y ago> If software patents had been commonplace in 1980, I would not have been able to create such a system, nor would I probably have ever thought of doing it, nor can I imagine anyone else doing so. I don't understand this. How would patents have prevented him thinking about it ? I don't understand this logic. I totally agree that software patents are abusive and most of the time not useful to society, but why say it would prevent people from inventing stuff ? Even if someone steals your invention, if it's a real breakthrough it will be used, don't you think ?
- Retric 12y agoThey don't prevent the initial idea but they do make implementing it pointless. For a current example A lot of educational software ideas fall into this due to Blackbards mass of patients and litigation happy stance. Anyway, Blackboard has little I incentive to buld a better product or bother trying to buy out competitors thus killing off a lot of innovation.
- iwwr 12y ago>How would patents have prevented him thinking about it ? I don't understand this logic. It would mean he would need a license for every building block of an algorithm. It would have meant early (and vital) algorithm research bogged down by lawyers and lawsuits. You can't release a free implementation without a license and so the free software ecosystem may not have appeared at all (and we wouldn't even realize what we lost). Lastly, Knuth is a mathematician and he could have chosen any number of specialties; early lawyerization of algorithm research may have denied us all his input in the field. Current software giants benefited greatly from free ideas and copied mercilessly off each other. Even now the tendency is to have broad and inclusive cross-licensing, leaving mostly young companies in the firing line. The things that never get built probably dwarf any measurable damage caused by patent litigation.
- jokoon 12y agoyeah so it's more a business practice problem than anything else... also I don't understand why patent trolls are not patenting gzip, sorting algorithms or any other kind of technology. I think the patent office use experts to approve a patent, so why are there such stupid patents ? Can't they just void them ?
- igravious 12y agoWith all respect to Knuth, if you really inspect his arguments and assertions they are quite weak or have turned out unfounded. * emigration? No. U.S.A still has smart minds immigrating * stifle innovation? No. Innovation still happens, progress is being made * mathematical/non-mathematical and numerical/non-numerical distinction - Not clearly elaborated * Limp analogy to to previous edicts (designating PI as 3 and Earth as flat) are category errors --- We now see that the end result of the current patent set up is that it allows those with questionable morals and/or deep pockets to extract rent from the stuff of thought rather than land or housing as was the traditional way. Is this right or wrong? Only if rent-seeking is right or wrong. The patent system is working exactly as it should be. Note: I actually think that some algorithms which are of significant invention/discovery could/should be patented (I mean, why not?) but what happens is that many many many stupid algorithms get patented and also large corporations can defend turf by sewing patents in virtual land that they have traversed. Because the systems surrounding patents is equally broken, patents are broken. The original idea to reward inventors for ideas is still valid. We throw the baby out with the bath-water if we do not acknowledge this. What say you? :)
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago> Is this right or wrong? Only if rent-seeking is right or wrong. Wait, what? Rent-seeking is wrong. Please let me know if there is anything else you need clarified.
- chii 12y agowhile i agree with the fact that rent seeking is wrong, you should present an argument as to why it is wrong, instead of just a condescending statement of the fact.
- AnthonyMouse 12y agoThere is no actual dispute about the wrongness of rent-seeking, the only people who might think otherwise are either misanthropic Machiavellian jackasses who are themselves wrong or people who don't know what rent-seeking is. It's like saying "that's only wrong if corruption is wrong." Well no kidding corruption is wrong, does anybody actually want to dispute that or are you just asking for a link to the collected works of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson?
- xophe 12y ago>>"I am told that the courts are trying to make a distinction between mathematical algorithms and nonmathematical algorithms." As Knuth implies, this is a fool's errand, and this is the reason why courts should not award any patents protecting an algorithm at all. As a thought exercise, is "A website that advertises a series of random beers from a known collection of user preferred beers" mathematical? No? Then, is a random shuffling algorithm mathematical based on a vector of inputs mathematical? No? How about the following code? void sort(int *arr, int len) for (int i = 0; i < len; ++i) { r = rand % len; swap(arr + i, arr + r); } Not mathematical? Then what about a function "s" described as s(x) = f(g(h(x))), where x is a vector, h multiplies the vector by the identity matrix, and g multiplies its input against the set of all possible matrices such that all elements are 1 or 0 and there can be at most 1 non-zero element for a given row and column, and f chooses a random input from its set and returns its multiplication against a vector of 1s? These are, at their core, all algorithms, and they are all mathematical. The courts have already established that the "Internet of things" is not patentable, which is why the first example transfers to the second. This is admittedly a poor example, but for a better understanding read Knuth's "Fundamental Algorithms."
- throwawaykf05 12y agoYou and Knuth (and most others here) are operating under the same misunderstandings, the main one being a false equivalence between a patentable invention and the non-patentable underlying principles or elements that enable it. Let me just point to a previous comment that addresses this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7923894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7923894 Applying that to your example, note that a patent on "random ads" would not preempt anyone else from using shuffling algorithms, and hence it is not the algorithm being patented.
- rayiner 12y agoProf. Knuth's point boils down to: > To a computer scientist, this makes no sense, because every algorithm is as mathematical as anything could be. But there is no reason for definitions in the law to mirror precisely the definitions of computer science. After all, a patentable drug formula is, to a chemist, just a description of a chemical system under the laws of chemistry. A patentable mechanical invention is, to a physicist, just a description of a physical system under the laws of physics. The law very often makes distinctions between things that cannot be distinguished by their fundamental nature, on the basis of external policy reasons. The difference between murder and self-defense cannot be described by fundamental differences in the physical mechanics of the two actions. Now, that is not to say that software should be patentable, but rather that "all algorithms are math" is an irrelevant reason for making software not patentable. It's an interesting philosophical and theoretical point (not to mention, obviously true), but has no relation to the purposes of patent law.
- PythonicAlpha 12y agoThe reason for making software patentable is just one: Big corporations see an advantage in it. That is all about it. That's the reason, they started with this and that is the reason, why nobody changes this system, although anybody with a clear mind can see what harm is being done. The corporations pay hundreds of lobbyists and lawyers to ensure, they can protect their support-system. All the other reasons told, are just gibberish.
- ScottBurson 12y agoSo what distinction, exactly, do you propose? Somehow a definition has to be offered that can be consistently applied by the courts. I don't see what that could be. Algorithms are mathematical structures, and they're also machines. Both of these claims are true in the plainest, most common meanings of the words possible. An attempt to create a distinction between classes of algorithms has to be based on something. Again: what could that be? EDITED to add: just so it's clear where I'm coming from -- I think algorithms are clearly patentable subject matter. The problem we have with software patents is that the obviousness bar is far, far too low.
- 12y ago
- justicezyx 12y agoPatent officers give no damn to Knuth! ...
- javajosh 12y agoIt occurs to me that the fight over software patents is all about marketing, which is (mostly) about money. After all, if you produce a unique piece of software, you have "first mover" advantage; the only way someone can eat your lunch is if they a) copy you and b) market it better than you. The two major ways you can be out-marketed are a) adding your product as a feature to a much larger, already successful product, and b) spending more money on marketing, adoption, and general product/market fit. (There is the possibility that you just get lucky on virality, like what happened with Flappy Birds, but that's extremely unlikely). "The little guy" is helped tremendously by patents, because he now has tremendous leverage against against a company that does one of these two things with his idea. They are forced to license the invention. This, in turn, falls apart when the invention is "obvious" or in some way "inevitable". This hurts both the big guy and the little guy - although arguably, it hurts the little guy even more than the possibility of theft, since the little guy is not spending his days reading patents.
- rabarbers 12y agoKnuth wrote: soon USA will lose domonant positions. His prediction was wrong, which leads me to think that his oppinion about software patents was highly theoretical assuming how it would be if..., because he truly believes that... Such arguments are emotionally driven.
- Angostura 12y agoDoes anyone know if he received a reply?