4 ms·

Your E=mc^2 example actually highlights one difference between patentable and non-patentable math. Calculating E does nothing useful by itself. But calculating

Your E=mc^2 example actually highlights one difference between patentable and non-patentable math. Calculating E does nothing useful by itself. But calculating the DCT of a series of numbers representing an image, arranging it in a matrix, traversing it in a zigzag pattern and applying run-length encoding does do something undeniably useful: it allows compression, which can conserve bandwidth and disk-space. Yet you seem unwilling to accept the difference between mathematics and applications of mathematics, of which the latter is being patented. Let me try a different analogy. Mathematics cannot be copyrighted. Yet software can be. If you can resolve this conflict, you may find a hint to explain how software can also be patented.

spacemanmatt 12y ago
Calculating the DCT of a series of numbers representing an image, arranging it in a matrix, traversing it in a zigzag pattern and applying run-length encoding does something undeniably mundane, in the eyes of a typical computer programmer. We call this transformation. It's useful, but it's MATH.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  1. No, it is a useful application of math. The moment it can be used for absolutely practical purposes like compression, it is no longer abstract. 2. It appears mundane because I just spelt it out for you. Was it "typical computer programmers" that invented JPEG encoding?
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> Calculating E does nothing useful by itself. But calculating the DCT of a series of numbers representing an image, arranging it in a matrix, traversing it in a zigzag pattern and applying run-length encoding does do something undeniably useful: it allows compression, which can conserve bandwidth and disk-space. All math is useful for something. How is calculating 'E' not useful? I need to know how many turbines to build. > Mathematics cannot be copyrighted. Yet software can be. If you can resolve this conflict, you may find a hint to explain how software can also be patented. There are multiple equivalent encodings to represent any mathematical operation. Since the encodings are equivalent, choosing one is a creative act having no mathematical consequences. Copyrighting that work of authorship provides no monopoly over the math because the same math remains available to anyone else using any of the infinitely many other possible equivalent encodings. Even in the unlikely event that someone else independently comes up with exactly the same encoding (more likely for extremely simple algorithms), independent creation means no copyright infringement. By contrast, a patent would cover all of the equivalents and make no exception for independent creation, which would make it a patent on the math itself rather than any particular encoding.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  > I need to know how many turbines to build.- And that is a patent-eligible application* of the abstract equation :-) You could potentially get a patent on that application but that would not preempt the equation itself. Somebody else could potentially get a patent on the use of that exact same equation to calculate the number of atoms to feed into an anti-matter space drive. > There are multiple equivalent encodings to represent any mathematical operation... And similarly there are potentially infinite applications of a mathematical operation. Patenting one application does not provide a monopoly over the mathematical operation itself. Now you may again try to conflate "algorithm" and "abstract mathematics" and "computation" again, but you cannot change the fact that the algorithm without its practical application is meaningless. But even algorithms are too specific a word for most software patents. Consider a patent on a mobile app (valued at, say, $10 billion) that claims sending photos over a network that are auto-erased at the receiver after a time period expires. What is the algorithmic complexity of that?
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > And that is a patent-eligible application* of the abstract equation I think we've come to the heart of it here. The heat output of a particular reaction is a law of nature. Its calculation is a mathematical operation. The discovery of that mathematical formula E=mc^2 is non-obvious. It took centuries of scientific minds before Einstein. But given that law of nature and its mathematical description, the decision of how many steam turbines to build for a given energy output is preposterously obvious. So the problem is they're granting patents on obvious applications of computations just because the computation itself is non-obvious. Which makes it a simple rule to clarify things: a) Computations are not patentable and b) obvious applications of unpatentable computations are not patentable. > And similarly there are potentially infinite applications of a mathematical operation. Patenting one application does not provide a monopoly over the mathematical operation itself. The problem is they aren't issuing patents on applications, they're issuing patents on algorithms. It doesn't matter what application you use the software for because the software itself infringes the patent. The so-called application devolves to "run this algorithm on a computer." > But even algorithms are too specific a word for most software patents. Consider a patent on a mobile app (valued at, say, $10 billion) that claims sending photos over a network that are auto-erased at the receiver after a time period expires. What is the algorithmic complexity of that? Let's see. recv_file(image_url, filename); set_timer(time_period, bind(&delete, filename)); That's about it. Obviously each function has its own rabbit hole to go down, but so do all mathematical operations, even the seemingly fundamental ones that programmers treat as intrinsic. You can make any mathematical operation arbitrarily complex; it's turtles all the way down. And each of the individual functions above exists in the prior art.

spacemanmatt 12y ago

Calculating the DCT of a series of numbers representing an image, arranging it in a matrix, traversing it in a zigzag pattern and applying run-length encoding does something undeniably mundane, in the eyes of a typical computer programmer. We call this transformation. It's useful, but it's MATH.

throwawaykf05 12y ago
1. No, it is a useful application of math. The moment it can be used for absolutely practical purposes like compression, it is no longer abstract. 2. It appears mundane because I just spelt it out for you. Was it "typical computer programmers" that invented JPEG encoding?

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> Calculating E does nothing useful by itself. But calculating the DCT of a series of numbers representing an image, arranging it in a matrix, traversing it in a zigzag pattern and applying run-length encoding does do something undeniably useful: it allows compression, which can conserve bandwidth and disk-space. All math is useful for something. How is calculating 'E' not useful? I need to know how many turbines to build. > Mathematics cannot be copyrighted. Yet software can be. If you can resolve this conflict, you may find a hint to explain how software can also be patented. There are multiple equivalent encodings to represent any mathematical operation. Since the encodings are equivalent, choosing one is a creative act having no mathematical consequences. Copyrighting that work of authorship provides no monopoly over the math because the same math remains available to anyone else using any of the infinitely many other possible equivalent encodings. Even in the unlikely event that someone else independently comes up with exactly the same encoding (more likely for extremely simple algorithms), independent creation means no copyright infringement. By contrast, a patent would cover all of the equivalents and make no exception for independent creation, which would make it a patent on the math itself rather than any particular encoding.

throwawaykf05 12y ago
> I need to know how many turbines to build.- And that is a patent-eligible application* of the abstract equation :-) You could potentially get a patent on that application but that would not preempt the equation itself. Somebody else could potentially get a patent on the use of that exact same equation to calculate the number of atoms to feed into an anti-matter space drive. > There are multiple equivalent encodings to represent any mathematical operation... And similarly there are potentially infinite applications of a mathematical operation. Patenting one application does not provide a monopoly over the mathematical operation itself. Now you may again try to conflate "algorithm" and "abstract mathematics" and "computation" again, but you cannot change the fact that the algorithm without its practical application is meaningless. But even algorithms are too specific a word for most software patents. Consider a patent on a mobile app (valued at, say, $10 billion) that claims sending photos over a network that are auto-erased at the receiver after a time period expires. What is the algorithmic complexity of that?
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > And that is a patent-eligible application* of the abstract equation I think we've come to the heart of it here. The heat output of a particular reaction is a law of nature. Its calculation is a mathematical operation. The discovery of that mathematical formula E=mc^2 is non-obvious. It took centuries of scientific minds before Einstein. But given that law of nature and its mathematical description, the decision of how many steam turbines to build for a given energy output is preposterously obvious. So the problem is they're granting patents on obvious applications of computations just because the computation itself is non-obvious. Which makes it a simple rule to clarify things: a) Computations are not patentable and b) obvious applications of unpatentable computations are not patentable. > And similarly there are potentially infinite applications of a mathematical operation. Patenting one application does not provide a monopoly over the mathematical operation itself. The problem is they aren't issuing patents on applications, they're issuing patents on algorithms. It doesn't matter what application you use the software for because the software itself infringes the patent. The so-called application devolves to "run this algorithm on a computer." > But even algorithms are too specific a word for most software patents. Consider a patent on a mobile app (valued at, say, $10 billion) that claims sending photos over a network that are auto-erased at the receiver after a time period expires. What is the algorithmic complexity of that? Let's see. recv_file(image_url, filename); set_timer(time_period, bind(&delete, filename)); That's about it. Obviously each function has its own rabbit hole to go down, but so do all mathematical operations, even the seemingly fundamental ones that programmers treat as intrinsic. You can make any mathematical operation arbitrarily complex; it's turtles all the way down. And each of the individual functions above exists in the prior art.