|
Authored by: Tolerance on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 04:16 PM EST |
The Supreme Court precedents which until recently dictated
that mathematics was not patentable relied not so much on
math being 'abstract' but rather on mathematical results
being laws of nature.
Since most mathematicians are emphatically of the opinion
that maths is a creation of the mind, not laws of nature,
that would favour patentability.
Sooner or later that, and similar arguments, will be put
before judges under pressure, and SCOTUS will declare that
maths is patentable, in circumstances which effectively
allow patenting algorithms.
It's already half way there by refusing certiorari to cases
which threaten to raise the issue.
That said, your point A - that the formula for calculation
of a Mersenne prime - will be held patentable because nearly
all such primes can't be calculated within a lifetime -
doesn't follow.
The calculation of primes needing over 126 years (the
highest lifespan on record) might be held patentable. The
underlying formula will not. It's Mersenne, by the way, not
mersene.
---
Grumpy old man[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|