3 ms·

> But it is also ineffective. It's ineffective for another reason. Arguments such as "We can make one by listing all possible programs in alphabetic order. Any

> But it is also ineffective. It's ineffective for another reason. Arguments such as "We can make one by listing all possible programs in alphabetic order. Any program that one may write is sitting in this list waiting to be written. In such a case, could a program be considered an invention in the sense of patent law? Or is it a discovery because the program is a preexisting mathematical abstraction that is merely discovered?" are irrelevant, because a court would observe that it takes effort and intention for a programmer to write a program, just as it takes effort and intention for an author to write a novel. (And for the same reason, any argument that novels can't be copyrighted because they are merely "discovered" would fall flat on its face.) The law takes into account the thoughts and intentions of people, which trump logical mathematical arguments, however sound. I recommend the essay "What Colour are your bits?" at http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php which goes into this point in more detail. That doesn't mean it's pointless to try to get judges to understand computers better. When they order things that're impossible -- such as telling an ISP to filter all traffic that infringes copyright, including on encrypted data -- they are clearly in need of education.

timwiseman 17y ago
Excellent point. To extend it slightly, you can similarly list all possible patent applications alphabetically, this means that the patents at least are discovered in precisely the same sense that programs are, if you tak that point of view.
zb 17y ago
That's a very good point. The assertion in the article that "All software is discovered and not invented" is making a false distinction. You could say that about anything. Was the wheel invented or discovered? In fact "invent" and "discover" originally had the same definition. (The Latin root invenire meant to find or come upon.) Scientists of the Renaissance era referred to their scientific discoveries as "inventions". An argument along these lines inevitably becomes one of semantics; it doesn't actually shed any light on the subject of whether software can or ought to be patented.

timwiseman 17y ago

Excellent point. To extend it slightly, you can similarly list all possible patent applications alphabetically, this means that the patents at least are discovered in precisely the same sense that programs are, if you tak that point of view.

zb 17y ago

That's a very good point. The assertion in the article that "All software is discovered and not invented" is making a false distinction. You could say that about anything. Was the wheel invented or discovered? In fact "invent" and "discover" originally had the same definition. (The Latin root invenire meant to find or come upon.) Scientists of the Renaissance era referred to their scientific discoveries as "inventions". An argument along these lines inevitably becomes one of semantics; it doesn't actually shed any light on the subject of whether software can or ought to be patented.