5 ms·

I think the H.264 and MP3 patents basically patents math. I wonder if it can be invalidated using similar reasoning. The aforementioned Microsoft patents are on

by yuhong 12y ago

I think the H.264 and MP3 patents basically patents math. I wonder if it can be invalidated using similar reasoning. The aforementioned Microsoft patents are on my wishlist for Satya BTW: http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2014/08/my-wishlist-for-satya.html http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2014/08/my-wishlist-for-satya.h...

jandrewrogers 12y ago
Algorithm patents do not patent math, they patent processes that are describable with math. It is the difference between patenting the concept of "sorting" and patenting a specific sorting algorithm; only the latter is allowed. The conceptual test for patentability of an algorithm in most countries is that it is directly reducible to practice as a novel electronic circuit design. All patentable subject matters are directly describable with math in exactly the same way as proper algorithm patents, and chemical process patents have an identical abstract structure (just change "bits" to "atoms"), so any specific argument against algorithm patents would consistently apply to most or all patentable subject matters.
- bane 12y ago
  The problem with patenting a specific algorithm is that a human sitting at a desk with a piece of paper and a pencil can perform pretty much any algorithm. It might be hard for a human to do, or a group of humans to do, but it's still conceivable. A great many algorithms we use and enjoy today were developed with nothing more than a blackboard and a piece of chalk after all...well before being committed to code or circuit. Doing it "on a computer" just means it's faster and less error prone, but in theory, just about any algorithm can be done without a specific software or hardware implementation. But algorithms, can be described as math, but nonobvious and useful processes can also be patented. So can improvements to existing processes. A simple example, the Fast Inverse Square Root is nonobvious and useful, even if it's simple in execution. Novel algorithm design can also be the result of years of work. And in theory patents would have allowed the inventor of the algorithm to recoup that development cost through a short term monopoly. And I think that's fine. But that short term is turning into long term and I think that's a problem. The irony is that attempts to lengthen the term of monopoly granted by a patent might in the end undo the whole system.
  - throwawaykf05 12y ago
    I'm curious, where do you see attempts to increase patent terms?
    - bane 12y ago
      It's happening in pharma and medicine right now. [1] To justify the cost of R&D, there's a significant lobbying effort to increase patent term to longer periods. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2585454/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2585454/
      - throwawaykf05 12y ago
        Ah, I was unaware, thanks.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > Algorithm patents do not patent math, they patent processes that are describable with math. It is the difference between patenting the concept of "sorting" and patenting a specific sorting algorithm; only the latter is allowed. The problem with this logic is that algorithms and math are the same thing. F=ma describes what happens when you hit a golf ball with a club. You can't patent F=ma, you can patent a novel golf club. A golf club is not an equation. An algorithm is not described by math, it is math. Thought experiment: Suppose that you were allowed to patent math. Name some product that would infringe the math patent that would not infringe the corresponding algorithm patent. > The conceptual test for patentability of an algorithm in most countries is that it is directly reducible to practice as a novel electronic circuit design. That is no test. All novel algorithms (or, equivalently, mathematical formulas) are directly reducible to novel electronic circuit designs. Deterministically by a machine. It's like saying you can't patent math unless you write it down. You're attempting to distinguish two things using a test that identifies them as equivalent. > All patentable subject matters are directly describable with math in exactly the same way as proper algorithm patents, and chemical process patents have an identical abstract structure (just change "bits" to "atoms"), so any specific argument against algorithm patents would consistently apply to most or all patentable subject matters. The difference is that with "atoms" the description is distinct from the implementation. A computer simulation of the atoms in Tylenol wouldn't infringe a patent on Tylenol. The simulation is math. The simulation doesn't treat aches and pains.
  - jandrewrogers 12y ago
    One of the fundamental concepts in algorithmic information theory is that the physical design and construction of your "novel golf club" is completely and perfectly equivalent to a mathematical equation in exactly the same way the RSA algorithm is. The argument generalizes to all patentable subject matters. And as fabrication technology is becoming more sophisticated this fact is starting to become more obvious in practice. No one patented modular exponentiation, they patented an encryption algorithm that employs modular exponentiation. That is a distinction with a real difference. All patents have this type of construction. The same argument could be used to assert that all chemical process patents are patenting common chemistry or facts of nature. The deeper issue with both copyrights and patents is that they are based on legal distinctions that don't exist mathematically. The law must therefore necessarily be inconsistent and ambiguous in its treatment of such things. Piling yet another mathematically unsupportable fiction on top of the existing ones won't mitigate the problem. I can live just fine without algorithm patents but as a matter of principle I also object to the obviously selective and inconsistent application of standards for what is and is not patentable.
- xchg_ax_ax 12y ago
  What if I write a compiler which is able to produce automatically the mp3 compression scheme through a more generic description of lossy stream processing, along with the ad-hoc math notions (fourrier transform, etc)? Does it mean every person using that compiler will potentially have to pay? We already have software framework able to automatically (dis)prove theorems and generate code, so we're not very far practically from the above hypothesis, what will happen then?

by yuhong 12y ago

jandrewrogers 12y ago

Algorithm patents do not patent math, they patent processes that are describable with math. It is the difference between patenting the concept of "sorting" and patenting a specific sorting algorithm; only the latter is allowed. The conceptual test for patentability of an algorithm in most countries is that it is directly reducible to practice as a novel electronic circuit design. All patentable subject matters are directly describable with math in exactly the same way as proper algorithm patents, and chemical process patents have an identical abstract structure (just change "bits" to "atoms"), so any specific argument against algorithm patents would consistently apply to most or all patentable subject matters.

bane 12y ago
The problem with patenting a specific algorithm is that a human sitting at a desk with a piece of paper and a pencil can perform pretty much any algorithm. It might be hard for a human to do, or a group of humans to do, but it's still conceivable. A great many algorithms we use and enjoy today were developed with nothing more than a blackboard and a piece of chalk after all...well before being committed to code or circuit. Doing it "on a computer" just means it's faster and less error prone, but in theory, just about any algorithm can be done without a specific software or hardware implementation. But algorithms, can be described as math, but nonobvious and useful processes can also be patented. So can improvements to existing processes. A simple example, the Fast Inverse Square Root is nonobvious and useful, even if it's simple in execution. Novel algorithm design can also be the result of years of work. And in theory patents would have allowed the inventor of the algorithm to recoup that development cost through a short term monopoly. And I think that's fine. But that short term is turning into long term and I think that's a problem. The irony is that attempts to lengthen the term of monopoly granted by a patent might in the end undo the whole system.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  I'm curious, where do you see attempts to increase patent terms?
  - bane 12y ago
    It's happening in pharma and medicine right now. [1] To justify the cost of R&D, there's a significant lobbying effort to increase patent term to longer periods. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2585454/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2585454/
    - throwawaykf05 12y ago
      Ah, I was unaware, thanks.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> Algorithm patents do not patent math, they patent processes that are describable with math. It is the difference between patenting the concept of "sorting" and patenting a specific sorting algorithm; only the latter is allowed. The problem with this logic is that algorithms and math are the same thing. F=ma describes what happens when you hit a golf ball with a club. You can't patent F=ma, you can patent a novel golf club. A golf club is not an equation. An algorithm is not described by math, it is math. Thought experiment: Suppose that you were allowed to patent math. Name some product that would infringe the math patent that would not infringe the corresponding algorithm patent. > The conceptual test for patentability of an algorithm in most countries is that it is directly reducible to practice as a novel electronic circuit design. That is no test. All novel algorithms (or, equivalently, mathematical formulas) are directly reducible to novel electronic circuit designs. Deterministically by a machine. It's like saying you can't patent math unless you write it down. You're attempting to distinguish two things using a test that identifies them as equivalent. > All patentable subject matters are directly describable with math in exactly the same way as proper algorithm patents, and chemical process patents have an identical abstract structure (just change "bits" to "atoms"), so any specific argument against algorithm patents would consistently apply to most or all patentable subject matters. The difference is that with "atoms" the description is distinct from the implementation. A computer simulation of the atoms in Tylenol wouldn't infringe a patent on Tylenol. The simulation is math. The simulation doesn't treat aches and pains.
- jandrewrogers 12y ago
  One of the fundamental concepts in algorithmic information theory is that the physical design and construction of your "novel golf club" is completely and perfectly equivalent to a mathematical equation in exactly the same way the RSA algorithm is. The argument generalizes to all patentable subject matters. And as fabrication technology is becoming more sophisticated this fact is starting to become more obvious in practice. No one patented modular exponentiation, they patented an encryption algorithm that employs modular exponentiation. That is a distinction with a real difference. All patents have this type of construction. The same argument could be used to assert that all chemical process patents are patenting common chemistry or facts of nature. The deeper issue with both copyrights and patents is that they are based on legal distinctions that don't exist mathematically. The law must therefore necessarily be inconsistent and ambiguous in its treatment of such things. Piling yet another mathematically unsupportable fiction on top of the existing ones won't mitigate the problem. I can live just fine without algorithm patents but as a matter of principle I also object to the obviously selective and inconsistent application of standards for what is and is not patentable.
xchg_ax_ax 12y ago
What if I write a compiler which is able to produce automatically the mp3 compression scheme through a more generic description of lossy stream processing, along with the ad-hoc math notions (fourrier transform, etc)? Does it mean every person using that compiler will potentially have to pay? We already have software framework able to automatically (dis)prove theorems and generate code, so we're not very far practically from the above hypothesis, what will happen then?