[Patents] Re: European arguing for patenting pure math formulas

[jtobey@john-edwin-tobey.org (John Tobey)]

I am completely against swpat, but Greg has a somewhat valid criticism
of Hartmut's formula, and we will get further with real arguments than
with false accusations.

Greg's grain of truth: a mathematical proof is relatively easy when
one knows what is to be proved.

I rephrase Hartmut's statement: A patent on an invention in the realm
of applied natural science is valid until the day when someone has
mathematically deduced it from prior knowledge in a cheap process that
does not benefit from knowledge of the patented material.

But this rule may not exclude all software patents, since proving
code, while easier than quantum mechanics, is still tricky.  Isn't it
the case that some encryption algorithms rely on a currently unproven
proposition, which if false would render them vulnerable to easy
attack?  One might conclude that the algorithms should be patentable.

I prefer another formulation: No patent should prevent people from
doing whatever they want with information, including copying,
transmitting, manipulating, augmenting, or interpreting it.

In other words, patents may legally restrict the processing of matter,
but not the processing of knowledge.

(To write this into law, one must point out that such effects as the
motion of electrons in information processing are irrelevant.)

-John


On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:38:52PM +0200, Bernard Lang wrote:
> 
>   So I am wondering whether these statements are in good faith

[snip]

> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:25:35PM -0400, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> > Hartmut writes:
> > >A patent on an invention in the realm of applied natural science is valid
> > >until the day when someone has mathematically reduced it to prior
> > >knowledge.
> > 
> > So I suppose you are against all chemical patents, since I can reduce all
> > chemical structures to quantum mechanical wavefunctions, derive new
> > chemical by combining such wavefunctions, and even test out the properties
> > by doing quantum mechanical calculations.  And if you are against
> > chemicals, you must also be against chemical compositions and gene
> > sequences, because they are mostly linear superpositions of quantum
> > mechanical wave functions.
> > 
> > Add your opposition of chemical patents to your opposition of electrical
> > patents (since all of your arguments against software patents apply
> > to hardware patents), and all that leaves is your good old, physical,
> > touchable, huggable, mechanical devices.  By chance, are you Amish?
> > 
> > Greg Aharonian