

Letter to the Patent Office from Professor Donald Knuth (circa 1994) - fogus
http://www.pluto.it/files/meeting1999/atti/no-patents/brevetti/docs/knuth_letter_en.html

======
ulf
"Therefore the idea of passing laws that say some kinds of algorithms belong
to mathematics and some do not strikes me as absurd as the 19th century
attempts of the Indiana legislature to pass a law that the ratio of a circle's
circumference to its diameter is exactly 3, not approximately 3.1416."

now that is a real gem

~~~
felideon
Seems like the Indiana bill had a few more options than pi = 3. :)

[http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-
leg...](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-legislature-
once-pass-a-law-saying-pi-equals-3)

------
grellas
Even when a patent claim tries to tie a mathematical algorithm to a machine,
the legal tests get all convoluted.

For example, in Ex Parte Gutta (BPAI 2009) (decided August, made precedential
December, 2009), the current USPTO test for patentability in such a case is
set out:

"(1) Is the claim limited to a tangible practical application, in which the
mathematical algorithm is applied, that results in a real-world use (e.g.,
'not a mere field-of-use label having no significance')?

(2) Is the claim limited so as to not encompass substantially all practical
applications of the mathematical algorithm either 'in all fields' of use of
the algorithm or even in 'only one field?'"

If the answer to either question is "no," the claim fails.

In that case, the claim indicated that a processor (working with memory) is
configured to identify a "mean item" whose symbolic value minimizes the
variance of a set. (See [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/12/patentable-
subject-m...](http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/12/patentable-subject-
matter-of-a-machine-that-uses-a-mathematical-algorithm.html) for a visual
depiction)

The BPAI found that the claim failed the first prong by not limiting itself to
any "tangible practical application in which the mathematical algorithm is
applied that result in a real-world use." Likewise, the claim failed the
second prong because it "encompasses substantially all practical applications"
of the algorithm. "That is we are unable to identify any other practical
application [of the algorithm] outside of the broadly defined claim."

Any time someone tries to grab a monopoly on an algorithm, there is a real
danger to innovation. Sometimes (as here) common sense prevails but often it
does not.

------
Xichekolas
> _If present trends continue, the only recourse available to the majority of
> America's brilliant software developers will be to give up software or to
> emigrate._

There is one other alternative which is available to anyone not selling their
software... ignore patents. I'm not sure if it's a legal option, but it
certainly seems to be the common case. I know I don't bother to stop and
figure out if an idea is patented before I implement it for my own uses.

~~~
fabjan
I'm afraid patents are too strong for that. It's illegal to infringe on
patents even for your own use.

~~~
Xichekolas
I'm aware that it may not be legal. My argument was that it's also
unenforceable.

------
far33d
I'm not really sure how this has existed for 16 years and I haven't read it.

This is the best argument I've ever heard against software patents.

~~~
tav
Indeed! Although, with the recent rise of Open Manufacturing, Knuth's
distinction between physical and abstract patents is looking a bit dated
though?

Thanks for the find fogus!

------
10ren
Imagine that IT was a more mature field, where basic techniques formed a body
of knowledge, a "state of the art" (perhaps in a "text-book" for IT), that is
known to all "qualified" practitioners. Then, the few innovations that do
occur would be truly new (and it'd be immediately clear whether they are or
not). A problem with this maturation is the complexity of software, and the
many ways to implement the "same" thing. Some fp academics (Smullyan) have
gone some substantial way to categorizing different techniques, such as a list
of "the" combinators, and ways to determine whether some code really
implements that combinator or not. A theory of computation.

As it is, we keep "reinventing" the same techniques, because they _aren't_
well-known - and many of us don't want to learn them because it's much more
fun to reinvent [mea culpa].

But this is really only half the idea of patenting. Really, the point of
patents is not to own new techniques, but to own _new ways of solving
practical problems_. It's not the technique in isolation; the patent should
only cover _that_ specific way of solving _that_ specific problem.

e.g. the patent on the telegraph should be on a particular solution to
transmitting information over long distances - not a patent on connecting
wires in a certain way. It should be specific to the problem.

------
siegler
Probably the most persuasive essay I've read in favor of patents is by pg.

<http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html>

I'm still not in agreement, but he he makes a good case.

~~~
joe_the_user
Good quote from the article:

 _One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software
patents, you're against patents in general. Gradually our machines consist
more and more of software. Things that used to be done with levers and cams
and gears are now done with loops and trees and closures. There's nothing
special about physical embodiments of control systems that should make them
patentable, and the software equivalent not._

I agree. I just think this is a strong argument against all patents rather
than an argument for patents. _The march of information technology makes
boundaries fuzzier and fuzzier and we have to think what will happen at the
limit of this process._ The boundaries between algorithms and information
expressions becomes fuzzy within a world of pure information. And ultimately,
either we will be in a position where all information, all expression, is _a
priori_ owned by one or another entities or we'll be in a position where all
information is free (sorry about the cliche being true..). I'd rather be in
the latter world.

~~~
gnaritas
> There's nothing special about physical embodiments of control systems that
> should make them patentable, and the software equivalent not.

I think he's wrong, there is something special, the rate of innovation, and
the cost of both change and the the initial barrier to entry. Physical machine
are generally much more expensive to create, change, and startup a business
with so granting the patent holder some limited monopoly on the invention
makes sense. With software, not so much.

~~~
joe_the_user
Uh,

This may be true currently but point I agree with PG on is that things are
_moving_ towards a situation where this will no longer be true. And the
movement is getting faster and faster. If the law is formulated merely on how
things are now, it will become obsolete just when it can do the most damage.

------
leelin
This isn't so clear cut for me. In many endeavors, it is far easier to copy
than to invent. Patents and the entire field of IP law exists to give
innovators and creators more incentives to take on risky or costly projects
that ultimately provide value.

Do people have a problem with:

1.) The concept of owning IP (and collecting the rewards)

2.) That there is human subjectivity in the process

3.) That the legal system for resolving disputes is broken and hackable via
expensive lawyers?

For me I think I'm only angry at (3) and some of (2), and maybe there is a way
to fix the system while keeping most of the current spirit of the law intact.

~~~
Xichekolas
> _Patents and the entire field of IP law exists to give innovators and
> creators more incentives to take on risky or costly projects that ultimately
> provide value._

This may be true, but has anyone ever verified that IP law actually brings
about more innovation? It certainly provides a legal framework to build a
_business_ around a new idea, but it's unclear to me whether it actually
causes people to come up with _more new ideas_.

~~~
greendestiny
There are no areas of computer science that seem to rely on patents to make
investment worthwhile. The closest would be compression I guess, but
unpatented video compression techniques seem to be advancing just fine. The
inherently low cost of computing research means there is a massive amount of
invention without the help of patents, and in those circumstances patents are
just getting in the way.

------
wrs
"Nor is it possible to distinguish between 'numerical' and 'nonnumerical'
algorithms [...]"

But I guess it is possible to distinguish "seminumerical" algorithms (vol 2)!

------
3dFlatLander
Here's a slashdot thread on the subject of software patents that I find
horribly interesting.

[http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=624631&cid=24319...](http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=624631&cid=24319265)

------
gjm11
The title should perhaps say "... sent in 1994". (I don't think any of it is
any less applicable now than it was then, though.)

~~~
GrandMasterBirt
Wait so what you are trying to say is that in 1994 we already knew that
patents on software are going to kill us, and someone spoke up against it, and
nothing was done?

Yes because enough people were not pissed off. This is changing now (sort-of-
kind-of-maybe-is) because a company like Red-Hat was ticked off well enough. I
give the current movement a 30% chance of success and a 80% chance of a
success with no real good impact that was intended by something like this
letter.

~~~
jcl
Heh... It was pretty obvious what would happen, well before 1994. From a 1991
Bill Gates memo:

 _If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's
ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a
complete standstill today. I feel certain that some large company will patent
some obvious thing related to interface, object orientation, algorithm,
application extension or other crucial technique. If we assume this company
has no need of any of our patents then they have a 17-year right to take as
much of our profits as they want. The solution to this is patent exchanges
with large companies and patenting as much as we can._

[http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2007/03/analysis-
micros...](http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2007/03/analysis-microsofts-
software-patent-flip-flop.ars)

