[Patents] Re: invention and discovery

[Edward Avis epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk]

>From: "antonio abrantes" <antonio_abrantes@hotmail.com>

>Maybe here we have some confusion about the scope of a patent.
>In the case of a radar equipment (based on Dopler theory) the applicant
>will not monopolize the Dopller theory, that will continue free
>to development of other equipments. The same occurs if this invention
>was implemented by software: the aplicant will receive a patent for
>such an aplication of this theory, as a radar system (implemented by
>software).

>In this case, for me, the distinction is very clear: the doppler theory
>can not be patented and it is free to other inventions. The software
>protected here, is protected only to the application of such theory
>as implementation of a radar system.

I'm normally content to let others discuss philosophical things on this
list - my opposition to software patents is primarily for reasons of
economic benefit and personal freedom - but in this case I should point
out what is really the theory and what is the invention.

Suppose I discover a new algorithm and write a program that uses
it.  The algorithm itself is purely abstract - you could work through it
in your head or on paper, without needing a computer or any mechanical
device.  Finding a new algorithm is like finding a new theorem in
mathematics - in fact it is the same thing.

The algorithm itself is the theory, which cannot be patented.  The
program using it is an invention based on an application of that theory
- the invention can be protected but it doesn't stop others making their
own inventions based on the theory.

So I could protect my program, which is an implementation in C of a
particular sorting algorithm.  But I couldn't stop others from making
their own inventions based on the same algorithm.  This is exactly what
copyright on computer programs achieves.

>the patent US 5297206 is a good example: a patent claim over two
>large prime numbers, that can be used in an encryption eletronic e-mail
>program. What is the line between a encryption program and a
>mathematical method? I think that there is no difference, so I think
>that such kind of invention is not subject matter.

Unless you want to allow mathematics to be patentable also.  That may
happen sooner than you think; since a computer program is equivalent to
a mathematical proof, patentability for one would lead to patentability
for the other.  I can just imagine all the patent lobbyists complaining
of the inconsistency that a computer program can be patented but pure
mathematics cannot...

-- 
Ed Avis
epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk