|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 07:45 PM EDT |
I agree that patenting a physical tool which implements a mathematical idea
should be OK. So the first slide rule, probably deserved a patent. So did the
first abacus (if the system had existed back then!)
So did THE FIRST general-purpose computer. It's a tool which implements some
mathematics using physical circuits and things. So far, so good.
But none of those cases are software patents. Software patents attempt to
patent "this piece of mathematics, when used in a computer". That's
ridiculous. It's exactly like patenting "this roll of player piano music,
when fed into a player piano". Software is just math, and should not be
patentable. Using a general-purpose computer to execute software (any software)
is the intended use of a general-purpose computer. It's not novel, its not
"a new machine", and it does not deserve a new patent for each
different piece of software someone comes up with.
It *certainly* doesn't deserve a patent for each small mathematical algorithm or
idea which might be used in thousands, even *millions* of different programs and
which can then potentially be used to threaten the authors of *all* of them in
court with multi-million-dollar lawsuits. Yet that's basically the situation we
have today.
This situation is actually very simple to fix: all we need is for either
Congress or the Supreme Court to make it clear that software is mathematics and
is not patentable subject matter (period, full stop). People can go on
patenting certain physical processes that involve some math somewhere (such as
curing rubber).
Just stop letting people get ridiculously broad patents on the everyday ideas
and algorithms that I need just to do my job.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 08:10 PM EDT |
I am the anon to whom you were replying.
You certainly implied that "real human ingenuity" should be rewarded
with a patent, whether you intended to or not. Your example of making bread
fall from the sky simply reinforces this, whether or not you agree. I think
that you might do well to contemplate the assumptions underlying your position -
you may find other ideas that you would disclaim have crept into and clouded
your thinking.
Setting that aside, you appear to agree that math is a tool that can be used to
make the useful arts more useful, even though it is not itself what is meant by
a "useful art" (it doesn't DO anything, it is simply a way of thinking
about things). The people who used math to get patents on measuring devices did
not thereby gain patents on the math that they used, only on the useful devices
they created. Everyone else was still free to use the underlying math, so long
as they didn't embody it in a device that worked in (more or less) exactly the
same way. The same is not true when you allow pure software patents - where you
disallow the use of the math. At least that's how I understand it coming from a
jurisdiction where stand-alone software patents generally don't exist, and
probably aren't valid.
I agree with you on the "promoting progress" issue but, as you said,
that is entirely separate.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 09:52 PM EDT |
if writing 1+1=2 on a chalkboard made
bread fall from the sky and
feed the hungry, I would give a
patent to the person who figured that out,
too
And prevent every child for the next 20 years from being able
to do their basic math homework unless they paid a royalty or faced a patent
lawsuit with a starting defense cost of $2 Million.
I think you made
your point clear with one of your responses to P.J.:
I tend to focus
on the money
The problem with the patent as outlined in the
chalkboard concept is that it "might" feed the hungry... if they could afford
it... and everyone else that was already well fed would also have to pay. If
you can't see the ultimate harm in that: I really don't know how to explain
it.
But for myself, you've made crystal clear:
Everything really
should be patentable subject matter - including math!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
