

1 + 1 (pat. pending) — Mathematics, Software and Free Speech - wisesage5001
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110426051819346

======
alain94040
I love Groklaw 99% of the time, and this is one case where the article doesn't
make any sense to me. Sure, at the most abstract level, software is math and
math is speech. But "First Amendment issues resulting from exclusive rights
granted to the exercise of mathematical speech"???

The fact that running a piece of software is predictable (the same program
runs the same way with the same inputs), is not a strong argument. A machine
(with physical gears) will perform the same function when run in the exact
same conditions. Just because one is an analog machine and one is a digital
machine doesn't change the concept of invention: making something new from
existing parts.

~~~
jbri
The predominant claim is that _the machine has already been invented_ , and a
new input to the existing machine should not be patentable.

------
shasta
Very long winded article that doesn't really do a good job of laying out a
case against software patents. Despite its length, the article doesn't address
the core false dichotomy: software is both an encoding of a pure mathematical
entity _and_ the input to a machine that actually does stuff. Just beating us
over the head with "software is mathematics/speech" for 50 pages doesn't
address the real issue which is that it isn't _just_ mathematics/speech.

------
SkyMarshal
TLDR: There's no way to tldr this, it's a pretty awesome essay. It's possibly
the most extensive and elaborate essay I've ever read on an actual web page
instead of a PDF or journal. Basically the author says:

 _"This article provides a detailed factual explanation of why software is
mathematics, complete with the references in mathematical and computer science
literature. It also includes a detailed factual explanation of why mathematics
is speech, complete once again with references._ "

The implication being that if software is mathematics (and/or speech), it
can't be patented. IANAL but I've suspected that a clear and elaborate
delineation of the equivalence of software and math/logic has been one big
things missing in this debate, and its absence has allowed patent trolls to
prosper much more than they would have otherwise.

Does anyone know of any other efforts like this to show software == math ==
logic?

~~~
corin_
You began with "there's no way to tldr this" then moved on with "Basically the
author says" and sumarised it?

~~~
chc
The obvious meaning to me is "Here's a summary. But no summary could really do
justice to this article. You should read it."

~~~
SkyMarshal
Exactly.

------
bfe
Ultimately any physical interaction can be abstracted into math - ultimately,
in precisely the same way as software being executed by a computing system. I
keep coming back to a recognition of every argument against software patents
ultimately reducing to an argument against the concept of patents in general.

~~~
azakai
> Ultimately any physical interaction can be abstracted into math -
> ultimately, in precisely the same way as software being executed by a
> computing system.

I agree on this point.

> I keep coming back to a recognition of every argument against software
> patents ultimately reducing to an argument against the concept of patents in
> general.

But I completely disagree on this one.

I think the 'software is math' argument is not convincing against patents (and
I have a background in mathematics, so you would think I would like such an
argument ;). But there are plenty of other excellent arguments against
__software __patents in particular, that are not valid against other kinds of
patents.

Patents make sense when progress is fairly slow, people read patents, and
patents are granted for actual innovation. Then you do want to award a patent
for the rare actual invention - it helps speed progress!. These 3 conditions
used to be true, more or less, for patents in general. But today none of them
are true for software patents:

1\. Progress is ridiculously fast. The entire industry changes in just a few
years. And patents last for decades!

2\. Software engineers do not read patents. Both because there is no actual
benefit to doing so, and because legal counsel always says "do not read
patents."

3\. A huge amount of patents are granted every year, and the quality is very
low. We constantly hear about ridiculous patents being granted and enforced.
(And yes, I know that headlines and Slashdot summaries are misleading - you
need to read the claims. But even when you __do __read those claims, in most
cases the ridiculous patents are still ridiculous.)

So I am against software patents, as they are harmful to the industry in their
current form. That is more than enough of a reason, regardless of whether
software is math or not (it is). Whereas, patents in general may still be
useful in other fields, and my arguments against software patents are not
relevant to them.

~~~
bfe
You've articulated this position about as well as I've seen it put.

I'm far from an unbiased party on these issues. I've been thinking a lot on
how they should be analyzed. There certainly have been quality issues, and
it's vital that patents serve their intended purpose of nurturing and
protecting innovation.

------
fryguy
I don't understand why the author needs to bring FOSS into the discussion. The
same argument could be made for regular patents in as much as someone could
invent something like a way to make water potable, and then a charity wants to
mass-produce them and give them to poor people in Africa, and the patent would
prevent that. See pharmaceutical patents for a similar thing.

There are other arguments as to why it interacts with FOSS software (patent
minefields etc) that affect regular software developers too, so there isn't a
need to separate FOSS from regular software development. Those aspects should
be the focus, not on the harm to the public.

------
Detrus
I don't see why it matters if software is math or not.

If the goal of the patent system is to encourage innovation and patenting
software or math accomplishes it, then patent it. If not, don't patent it.

The real difference is in how it's used and created. Generally speaking
everyone uses math, so if you could patent it you'd slow innovation for
everyone. If you're patenting algorithms that take a few days to create and
they can be applied across many domains, you're slowing innovation. Today this
applies to math and software. It will soon apply to engineering physical
objects as 3D printers, nanotech, etc.. will make it easier and faster.
Basically if innovation in a field is easy enough, patents will slow it down
and should not apply.

Obviously programmers want software to be special but if it was, the patent
system would be less consistent than it currently is. If you want software to
make sense in the patent system, just redesign the whole thing.

~~~
fryguy
The problem is that math isn't "invented", it's "discovered". Hence why it's
traditionally been un-patentable.

~~~
Detrus
These sound like silly distinctions. I'm sure lawyers have good rhetoric to
back themselves up but maintaining the pace of innovation should be
prioritized above their greatest arguments. If there was an opportunity to
redesign the patent system, some sort of economic framework should be used
instead of the legal one.

~~~
fryguy
Well there is a fundamental difference between the two. The light bulb was
invented, was lightning was discovered. It already existed, and was merely
discovered. It was discovered that there are are infinite primes. It was
discovered that f'(x) = 2x when f(x) = x^2. It was discovered that when p is
prime, (a * x) === b mod p, x is unique mod p (unless a=0, or something else).
Eventually you get to things like cryptography where you can apply some simple
things that were discovered into a process, and come up with encryption.

If you go back to mathematics and consider (Newton's
method)[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtons_method>], that seems like it
might have been invented, but it's derived from a series of discoveries, and
hence is considered a discovery rather than an invention. If you used the
Newton-Rhapson method to calculate the zero of a function in code somewhere,
you should feel safe that it's not protected by a patent (not to mention it
was discovered ages ago).

Since computer science is applied mathematics, and mathematics are discovered
rather than invented, it makes sense that it should be protected as well. I'm
not the best at explaining things, but hopefully you can understand the
difference.

~~~
Detrus
It was discovered that light has some weak magnetic properties, then an actual
experiment was done that discovered these magnetic properties were strong
enough to generate useful amounts of electricity. Patents were issued.

This is just semantic wordplay. I bet the legal literature is the same way.
Even if we somehow fit these clunky classifications to reality, we would be no
closer to designing a sensible patent system.

~~~
fryguy
Were the patents issued for using that form of electricity, or rather for the
contraption built to harness that electricity?

~~~
Detrus
Don't know. They haven't built a practical contraption yet, hopefully it's
some piece of their experimental setup, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's
math. After all, they do issue patents for what some describe as "8th grade
algebra" in software.

Don't worry, I understand the semantic distinction when the case is clear cut.
Lead is a discovery, lead pipes are an invention. Addition is a discovery,
arabic numerals are an invention. (by today's standards)

------
zachrose
See also, this episode of Dinosaur Comics:

<http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=353>

"Any series of 1s and 0s can be converted (quite easily) into a regular
number! So, for instance, your favorite song is contained—quite literally—in
one single, 4 million digit number."

