Hi Ross, > Are you suggesting by stating the above axiom that algorithms are _simply_ > ideas and that for this reason alone they shouldn't be patentable?
Yes I am, you've got it. An algorithm is unsufficiently concrete to deserve a patent, it is an abstraction, a generalisation. An algorithm is not "performing in an active role as an executing computer program", not any more than an imaginary line like the equator can be used to tie up a bundle of sticks. It would have to become computer program to do that. At that point it would meet the requirements for copyright which would be sufficient for its commercial protection. cheers, Andy On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 02:19:50 +1100 "Ross Bencina" <rossb-li...@audiomulch.com> wrote: > Hi Andy > > Andy Farnell wrote: > > AXIOM: Ideas should not be patentable. Period. > > > > Do I need to explain this? > > Sorry, you've lost me a bit here. Pehaps you do need to explain it.. see if > I'm twisting your words below or if you find that I'm addressing your > position (of course I don't expect you to agree with my argument): > > Are you suggesting by stating the above axiom that algorithms are _simply_ > ideas and that for this reason alone they shouldn't be patentable? Is that > the basis of your objection to software patents? That the patent system > should only apply to mechanisms that operate soley in the world of atoms > (like a design for a spiral ham slicer)? and not to mechanisms that operate > soely or partially in the information domain (like a design for a particular > exection structure for partitioned convolution) -- in spite of the fact that > the information domain is now intimately interfaced as an active participant > in much human (economic/industrial) activity? > > I can understand Knuth's criticism of the futility of trying to distinguish > between numerical and abstract-structural patentable concepts. But I can't > understand how you can equate _functional_ information structures (whether > algorithm or mathematical theorem) performing in an active role as an > executing computer program with all other "ideas" and say "sorry, that's > off limits, not patentable." Given the intent of the patent system to grant > monopoly rights over novel inventions I fail to see see how that's a valid > distinction to draw unless your real objection is to all patents and you're > just trying to keep them out of the software domain (and that is another > argument entirely). > > Much human activity is now conducted in the world of bits and bytes. > Algorithms are functional mechanisms that operate in the world of bits and > bytes. Why shouldn't they be patentable? Simply saying "because they are > ideas" isn't an argument on its own. Why should we distinguish between a > mechanism that performs partitioned convolution by juggling coloured marbles > and one that performs partitioned convolution by switching bits? > > A patent doesn't prohibit you from having the idea, thinking about an > algorithm, or using the patented thing in research (these are other common > things you do with "ideas"). I'm pretty sure you can also write books about > patented things, build new theories upon them, etc. A software patent does > place restrictions on use of that idea in its role as a concrete functional > information mechanism (e.g. in a computer system). > > I'm beginning to think that your previously stated moral objections are more > concerned with the whole notion and structure of intellectual property as a > legal construct than they are with software patents in particular -- would > that be a reasonable characterisation? In that light a lot of your previous > statements make a lot more sense to me. > > Ross. > > -- > dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: > subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp > links > http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp > http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp -- Andy Farnell <padawa...@obiwannabe.co.uk> -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
