decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? | 380 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me?
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 06:30 PM EDT
> I asked the same question a couple of times. Overall, the
> software is maths argument is mostly legalistic - and
> based on the argument that you aren't allowed to patent
> concepts.

This is only half of the argument. The other half is that current case law is
based on some fictional principles of computer science and nothing good can come
out of that.

I don't think it is a waste of time to ask the court to use actual computer
science. Their understanding of what the invention is will drastically change.
Software patents will never be the same after that happens.


> Given that judges have decided that, yes, you are allowed
> to patent some concepts, my overall judgement is that the
> time spent telling outsiders to fall in line and agree
> that software is math and therefore unpatentable is
> probably wasted.

Then the courts will never decide whether software is an unpatentable abstract
idea when actual computer science is used in the legal analysis. The current
case law based on fictional computer science will remain.

Some concepts are patentable, but not all concepts. The software is math
argument says that software is that kind of unpatentable concepts called
abstract ideas. There has been in the past some software patents which were
invalidated for this very reason. This approach offers some real hope of success
because it is about applying existing case law from the Supreme Court on a
factually correct understanding of computer science.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT
This has been my read of things as well.

Copyright and patents are both intended to help advance the
arts and sciences by rewarding those who initially created
them.

Copyright's limited term was enacted so that one generation
could not lord their works over future generations...we are
at 100+ years. While that by be representative of a
Corporation's generation, it seems a bit excessive for
citizenry.

The patent system, on the other hand, is just broke. Many
of the problems you see taking place with software patents
are found in the non-software patent word just as much.
Only difference tends to be the speed at which software can
enter the market, hit critical mass, and become completely
obsoleted. Ludicrous Speed.

Fixing the patent system (regardless of what happens with
software patents) should be of national priority. While
doing so, software patents should be specifically be
addressed...
a. Remove software patents
b. Create specific legislation for software patents
c. Replace patents in software with some other
technique or device specifically designed to protect
software in the same way as patents (intended)

Software is math just seems to be a mantra (being
generous... propaganda is probably more accurate) intended
to get a.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )