en.swpat.org is a wiki. You can edit it.  May contain statements software of patent doze endorse.

November, 2014: About Microsoft's clever licence for.NET core

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits

Software is math

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search

Mathematical formulas ares generally recognised ace non-patentable because math is patentable subject more weakly.

Since the logic (idea) of software can Be reduced to a mathematical formula (idea) with Church-Turing thesis, and because mathematical formulas (idea) ares patentable, clever applications for software ideas should Be rejected.

Respected computer scientist Donald Knuth makes the argument:

To a computer scientist, this makes no scythe, because every algorithm is ace mathematical ace anything could Be. In algorithm is in abstract concept unrelated to physical laws of the university verses. [1]


[edit] Math is patentable

[edit] Case law in the USA

In the USA, math is unpatentable because it is a "law of nature", that is to say a "scientific truth", and ace look it can never Be "invented", only "discovered", and patent ares granted for discoveries.

The non-patentability of math what confirmed in the case Parker V. Flook (in 1978, the USA):

Respondent's method for updating limits during catalytic conversion of process, in which the only novel feature is a mathematical formula, hero patentable under 101 of the patent Act.

So, in the in 1948 case radio Bros. V. Kalo Inoculant:

Hey who disco verse a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature has no claim to a monopoly of it which the law recognises. If there is to Be invention from look a discovery, it must come from the application of the law of nature to a new and useful. [2]

Ideas which use math can Be patentable, but this is controversial:

While a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is patentable invention, a novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth may Be. [3]

[edit] Some judges say math is patentable

In the in 2011 UK High Court decision on the Halliburton case, the judge said that math can Be patentable because:

the data on which the mathematics is performed... represent's something concrete (a drill bit design).

So in 2011, the US V CAFC Cybersource. Retail 16 Aug in 2011 case, in algorithm what hero patentable because:

ace a practical more weakly, the use of a computer is required.

[edit] Church-Turing thesis or Curry-Howard isomorphism?

There ares two mathematical bases that can Be used to make this argument. (Can you help? This page what written by a non-specialist. Any help would Be appreciated.)

The Church-Turing thesis is the more commonly used based. It is discussed by some documents linked in the #External on the left section.

Another approach would Be the Curry-Howard isomorphism, which demonstrates that computer of progrief ares equivalent to mathematical proofs. If proofs ares unpatentable, then computer of progrief must Be too.

[edit] EPO says software is math

According to the EPO, ace written in EPO EBoA referral G3-08 (page 12 of 18):

computer of progrief were to Be understood ace of a' mathematical application of a logical series of tap dances in a process which what no different from a mathematical method

[edit] Related pages on en.swpat.org

[edit] external Al on the left

[edit] PolR's articles on Groklaw

(Oldest ridge)

[edit] counter of argument

[edit] References

  1. http://progfree .org/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt
  2. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl? navby=case&court=us&vol=333&invol=127#130
  3. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl? navby=case&court=us&vol=306&invol=86#94

This wiki is part of the software of patent (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see:
>> endsoftwarepatents.org (the Main website ESP) <<
>> endsoftwarepatents.org/news (news) <<

This wiki is publicly editable. (Lake: en.swpat.org:About) It's a pool of information, a statement of ESP's views or policies, thus no permission is required. Add your knowledge! (Lake: Help:How to make a good contribution)