|
| Authored by: PolR on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 11:25 PM EDT |
It does not matter what mathematicians, software engineers, or
programmers
define as "mathematics" it only matters what Judges or
Legislators
define as "mathematics".
AFAIK the legislator has not
defined mathematics in the statute. This is a term which is used only in case
law and they have not defined it either. It can be sensibly argued that the
Supreme Court means the ordinary meaning of this term when they use it because
they don't hint of an alternative definition.
Additionally I think
but cannot be sure that the case law generally refers to
"algorithms" or
"equations" as legally defined, not
"mathematics" in
general.
That's the problem. Se the quote from in re Warmerdam in
the article. The judges on the Federal Circuit can't agree on what is the legal
definition of mathematical algorithm. But AFAIK all procedures that manipulate
symbols are legally considered abstract ideas. With the approach I suggest the
question of definition what is mathematics and algorithms in a legal sense is
moot. Have you read the article until the end? This comment sounds like you
didn't read the last section before posting.
Finally this whole
line of reasoning seems to be advancing a technical(or
theological) argument
against a point of public policy which in our society
should be decided by the
legislative branch of government.
This is not true. This argument
is raising the question of whether procedures for manipulating symbols is the
type of invention which is within the scope of patent law. It appears that the
legally accepted answer is "no" but the courts have not noticed software is
precisely this type of invention. This is not a technical (or theological)
argument. This is about knowing where are the boundaries of the law.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 11:29 PM EDT |
I think the point is that for decades, the courts have been making up their
own clumsy definitions for these technical terms, and delivering
inconsistent, illogical and sometimes downright nonsensical rulings as a
result. (Not to mention, offending the experts whose careers are built on
these technical subjects, and threatening their livelihoods by allowing
patent monopolization of ideas and algorithms).
I think the courts must be tired of getting this stuff so wrong and looking
like fools. Perhaps they are finally ready to ask computer scientists and
mathematicians how this stuff actually works, so they can address the
subject matter correctly in their rulings.
And not a moment too soon: software patents continue to damage the
U.S. software industry more and more every year.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT |
This comment is incorrect. Education is
what lobbyists do with legislators, is it
not? So education in any form can be
helpful. Don't leave ANYTHING to your
legislators and expect them to get it
right. Anyhow, it's really up to courts,
since that is where software patents
came from in the first place.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
I couldn't agree with you more.
BUT theology is a logical subject. Part of philosophy. Seeking to provide a
logical basis to the study of 42 :-)
Which is not what is happening with the current mess over software patents and
stuff.
And the difficulty with leaving it to the legislature to set policy is that we
have no guarantee it will be (theo)logically sound. Are we going to end up with
"pi = 3" again? :-)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- PI=3 laws - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 06:37 AM EDT
- PI=3 laws - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 01:06 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
I was involved in something of a debate concerning this point after a previous
article by PoIR.
The point however is that the legislature has decided that mathematics is not
patentable material. That step has already been taken.
Therefore it follows that if we can prove that software is mathematics as
understood by the legislature, then is it not patentable.
Although to me it at first sight felt like a land-grab - the land in question
has already been freely given. And with good reason it seems to be turning out.
jrw
My understanding (and I do keep getting this wrong (sigh))
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 07:03 AM EDT |
From Gottschalk v. Benson:A procedure for solving a given type of
mathematical problem is known as an
"algorithm." ---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
