[Patents] European arguing for patenting pure math formulas

[srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)]

    As an antidote to some of the non-scientific thinking appearing here,
what follows are the abstract, and one paragraph from the conclusion, of
a journal article from a European philosopher that pure mathematical
algorithms should be patentable, a proposal more ambitious than many made
here in America.  It is good to see that some Europeans sticking to pure
logic and semantics.

                                      ====

    Patenting mathemtical algorithms: What's the harm?  A thought
        experiment in algebra
    International Review of Law and Economics, v20 (2000), 187-204
    Paul B. de Laat
    Faculty of Philosophy, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

    Abstract
        The patenting of software-related inventions is on the
    increase, especially in the United States.  Mathematical formulas
    and algorithms, though, are still sacrosanct.  Only under special
    conditions may algorithms qualify as statutory matter: if they
    are not solely a mathematical exercise, but if they are somehow
    linked with physical reality.  In this article, the best results
    are obtained if formulas and algorithms are only protected in
    combination with a proof that supports them.  This argument is
    developed by conducting a thought experiment.  After describing
    the development of algebra from the 16th century up to the 20th
    century (in particular, the solution of the cubic equation), the
    likely effects on the development of mathematics as a science 
    are analyzed in the context of postulating a patent regime that
    would actually have been in force protecting mathematical inventions.

    Conclusion
        What lessons can be drawn from this thought experiment?  If
    the results are any guide to present-day developments, they would
    argue for a BLANKET ACCEPTANCE of mathematical formula and
    algorithms as statutory matter for patent applications.  Let us
    finally acknowledge that mathematics belongs not only to the
    'liberal arts' but also the 'useful arts'.  Let us abolish the
    'pure-number condition'; even if it is all mathematical abstraction,
    this is acceptable.  There is no need to specify links with
    'physical elements' or 'process steps', with 'pre-computer' or
    'post-computer process activity'.  Even if nothing of the sort is
    specified, the claim is acceptable.  Let us not bother that the
    claim 'wholly preempts' the use of the algorithm; let all possible
    commercial applications effectively become protectable.  It should
    be stressed that noncommercial, in particular academic, use is to
    remain possible (experimental use exception).  Actually, it is
    the development of both (pure) science and (applied) technology
    that the system is designed to foster.  Such unconditional acceptance,
    however, should be carefully formulated as to what is protected
    and what is not.  While the protection of formulas tout court is
    acceptal in societal terms, the best results seem to be obtained
    when algorithms and formulas are only patentable in combination
    with a supporting proof.  That arrangements keeps avenues open for
    inventive mathematicians to develop alternative methods of proof.

                                      ====

Greg Aharonian