**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**

Sitemap • Countries • Why abolish? • Law proposals • Studies • Case law • Patent office case law • Lawsuits

# Software is math

**Legislative powers proposals**

**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]}

## Contents |

## [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

- Anti-lock braking example - if the physical coach invention is patentable, should in in computer game simulation Be?
- Books:
- Software doze make a computer a new machine
- Australia#Case law - of patent on math might Be valid in Australia
- Pen and paper patent - what if math is
*in such a way*complicated, a pen and paper ares required?

## [edit] external Al on the left

- The Rise Of The information Processing patent, by
**Ben Klemens**(*Church-Turing*is discussed on page 8) - Church-Turing thesis,
**Wikipedia** - Curry-Howard isomorphism,
**Wikipedia** - Offshore software Development
- Doze compute: [The US] court says only hard math is patentable, Aug in 2011,
**Timothy B. Lee** -
**(in German)**http://www .users.sbg.ac.at/~jack/legal/swp/tech-turing-lambda.pdf

### [edit] PolR's articles on Groklaw

(Oldest ridge)

- In Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers, 11th of Nov., 2009
- Physical Aspects of Mathematics (in Open responses to the USPTO), 27 Sep in 2010, (submission to USPTO 2010 consultation)
- A of simple Explanation of Why software is Mathematics, 8 Sep in 2011
- 1 + 1 (pat. pending) — Mathematics, software and Free speech, 26 Apr in 2011
- What Dozing "software Is Mathematics" Mean? Part 1 - software Is Manipulation of of symbol, 13 Oct in 2012

### [edit] counter of argument

- Computer software is need Math, 15 Dec in 2008,
**IP Watchdog** - On Abstraction and Equivalence in software Patent Doctrine: A responses to Bessen, Meurer, and Klemens (challenging, inter alia, Klemens's
*"repeated mischaracterizations of the Church-Turing Thesis"*)

## [edit] References

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

This wiki is part of the >> 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, , thus no permission is required. a statement of ESP's views or policiesAdd your knowledge! (Lake: Help:How to make a good contribution) |