[vadiml]

I don't understand really why these patents are granted. Software is math and math formulas are not patentable. The patent (and copyrights) system today is actually subverted by greedy players and instead of promoting progress and sciences is serving to enrich the middlemen by artificially SLOWING the progress.

[louthy]

Saying “software is math” is akin to saying “books are just letters”; the building blocks of software is not what people want to protect, it’s the idea and the effort to invent.

Whether software should be patentable or not is obviously open for discussion, but saying it’s just math isn’t really enough of an argument.

[no_wizard]

The best of the mainstream arguments against software patents has always been: What does Intellectual Property and Copyright not cover that patents do when it comes to software?

I only have a few friends I trust on such a topic, and my understanding is between IP and Copyright laws from them (ones a public policy researcher, the other a lawyer), it would be more than sufficient for protecting companies work and patents were lobbied only because their enforcement is more heavy handed, IE, it can stifle competition under the guise of "patent infringement"

[codedokode]

Why not patent actual math then? For example, math that is used in machine learning: linear algebra, quadratic error etc.

[cma]

Aren't physical machines just math too? We can simulate them on computers, clearly just math, but maybe can't fully mathematically describe the non-idealized versions we produce in reality. Why does that level of completeness of description need to serve as such a sharp line on patentability?

[jandrewrogers]

Yes, and there are theorems to that effect. There is no distinction between "software" and "hardware" in mathematics.

[tzs]

Why are any patents granted? I've yet to read a patent that wasn't just Maxwell's equations, quantum mechanics, and general relativity which are all just laws of nature and not patentable.

As far as software goes, here's a question that can be interesting to ponder. Suppose there was some clever, useful, non-obvious entirely mechanical invention that was patented. If someone else tried to sell a product that accomplishes the same thing as that invention by having a computer running a general purpose physics simulation program which is given a model of that patented invention, would that be an infringement of the patent on the mechanical device?

[krona]

> would that be an infringement of the patent on the mechanical device?

No because a patent has to describe the mechanism (the non-obvious inventive step). If there are multiple ways to achieve the same thing then in practice it's hard to protect and the patent is probably worthless, if not too obvious to be granted in the first place.

[FireBeyond]

> Software is math and math formulas are not patentable.

Software isn't really math.

Software is logic, and usually opinionated logic choices at that.

[Marsymars]

So then is software a branch of math, or a branch of philosophy?

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Is it the machine instructions being patented or their novel compression method?

[bad_user]

Math should be patentable, too. The idea that math is "discovered" instead of "invented" is bullshit.

That, or get rid of patents altogether.

[orra]

> The idea that math is "discovered" instead of "invented" is bullshit.

Nope, not to mathematicians. We routinely talk about the existence of mathematician constructs. These things exist and can be discovered, just not physically.

[eviks]

That doesn't follow, patent doesn't imply every single invention should have one or else, you can design any patenting system you like

[ballenf]

Did someone invent 1+1=2?