From the article.
Thus, it had no practical use because the process
standing alone did not provide a specific and substantial benefit to the public.
It surely could have been incorporated into a number of practically useful
applications, but where a calculation can be used everywhere, including simply
for calculation’s purposes, it lacks practical usefulness.
Similarly, a process
to calculate the result of Einstein’s famous e=mc2 lacks practical use, while a
nuclear reactor using the same process might have practical use. Thus, if such
processes were applied to solve some practical problem, they might be useful. In
general, a series of steps that achieves no end is not practically useful, and
is therefore unpatentable
So you shouldn't be able to patent
an abstract formula with no context or usefulness. However just because a patent
which is useful is implemented in software, which is mathematics shouldn't make
it unpatentable.
I seem to recall that you can't patent forces of
nature, any physical patent is going to rely on forces of nature fundamentally.
Nobody is going to argue that you can patent a cyclone. But you can take that
concept, apply it to a vacuum cleaner and get a patent for it (see Dyson patent). I think there is the same
connection between maths and software patents.
my 2 cents on the whole
issue
Good patents should exist to protect ideas and encourage
innovation, both in and out of the software world. However the current tendency
for bad patents to be approved skews this and makes patents a damper on
independent innovation.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
