[Patents] European arguing for patenting pure math formulas

[orre@nada.kth.se (Roland Orre)]

Mr Aharonaian,
I'm really impressed by your untiring fight for keeping this system
full of contradictions.
Software is not patentable Mr Aharonian! This assumption of yours
that is should, is based upon a system of contradictions. As long
as you speak this language of contradictions I will utilize anything
you say, against you.
---------------
We can start with your usage of "science" below:
Enyclopedia Britannica says:

any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world
and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and
systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit
of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental
laws.
---------------
If we look upon "philosophy" it says:
(from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, "love of wisdom"), the
critical examination of the grounds for fundamental beliefs and an
analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs.
Philosophical inquiry is a central element in the intellectual
history of many historical civilizations.
---------------

Mr Aharonian, "philosophy" is not "science", it's the mother of
science but you can not prove anything with philosophy.
If we would use "science" in the way you claim, but which you don't,
and can't within this world, to prove anything about immaterial
arts as software or mathematics, then we would have to set up a
scientific goal with our study. We would have to set up a set of
parallell or sequential worlds, in a number large enough to give
significant results to prove anything scientifically.

1) You would need to clearly define the goals with your study.
2) You would need to design your experiments in such a way
   that any unknown factors due to e.g. random effects
   will cancel out and not affect the significance of your
   results.

The only way you could prove anything about the effects of an
immaterial art like software or mathematics onto a physical world
for me, Mr Aharonian, is to run the experiment in so many worlds that
the results become significant according the design of your
experiment.

Mr Aharonian, I am a scientist, and have been working with the
concept of science for most of my life. You can not prove anything
for a scienctist with unscientific methods.
I'm challenging you, Prove me wrong Mr Aharonian!

        Best regards
        Roland Orre

PS. Which run is this ;-) ?

On Thu, 10 May 2001, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
>     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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents
>