1 + 1 (pat. pending) — Mathematics, Software and Free Speech

I love Groklaw 99% of the time, and this is one case where the article doesn't make any sense to me. Sure, at the most abstract level, software is math and math is speech. But "First Amendment issues resulting from exclusive rights granted to the exercise of mathematical speech"???<p>The fact that running a piece of software is predictable (the same program runs the same way with the same inputs), is not a strong argument. A machine (with physical gears) will perform the same function when run in the exact same conditions. Just because one is an analog machine and one is a digital machine doesn't change the concept of invention: making something new from existing parts.

Very long winded article that doesn't really do a good job of laying out a case against software patents. Despite its length, the article doesn't address the core false dichotomy: software is both an encoding of a pure mathematical entity <i>and</i> the input to a machine that actually does stuff. Just beating us over the head with "software is mathematics/speech" for 50 pages doesn't address the real issue which is that it isn't <i>just</i> mathematics/speech.

TLDR: There's no way to tldr this, it's a pretty awesome essay. It's possibly the most extensive and elaborate essay I've ever read on an actual web page instead of a PDF or journal. Basically the author says:<p><i>"This article provides a detailed factual explanation of why software is mathematics, complete with the references in mathematical and computer science literature. It also includes a detailed factual explanation of why mathematics is speech, complete once again with references.</i>"<p>The implication being that if software is mathematics (and/or speech), it can't be patented. IANAL but I've suspected that a clear and elaborate delineation of the equivalence of software and math/logic has been one big things missing in this debate, and its absence has allowed patent trolls to prosper much more than they would have otherwise.<p>Does anyone know of any other efforts like this to show software == math == logic?

Ultimately any physical interaction can be abstracted into math - ultimately, in precisely the same way as software being executed by a computing system. I keep coming back to a recognition of every argument against software patents ultimately reducing to an argument against the concept of patents in general.

I don't understand why the author needs to bring FOSS into the discussion. The same argument could be made for regular patents in as much as someone could invent something like a way to make water potable, and then a charity wants to mass-produce them and give them to poor people in Africa, and the patent would prevent that. See pharmaceutical patents for a similar thing.<p>There are other arguments as to why it interacts with FOSS software (patent minefields etc) that affect regular software developers too, so there isn't a need to separate FOSS from regular software development. Those aspects should be the focus, not on the harm to the public.

I don't see why it matters if software is math or not.<p>If the goal of the patent system is to encourage innovation and patenting software or math accomplishes it, then patent it. If not, don't patent it.<p>The real difference is in how it's used and created. Generally speaking everyone uses math, so if you could patent it you'd slow innovation for everyone. If you're patenting algorithms that take a few days to create and they can be applied across many domains, you're slowing innovation. Today this applies to math and software. It will soon apply to engineering physical objects as 3D printers, nanotech, etc.. will make it easier and faster. Basically if innovation in a field is easy enough, patents will slow it down and should not apply.<p>Obviously programmers want software to be special but if it was, the patent system would be less consistent than it currently is. If you want software to make sense in the patent system, just redesign the whole thing.

See also, this episode of Dinosaur Comics:<p><a href="http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=353" rel="nofollow">http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=353</a><p>"Any series of 1s and 0s can be converted (quite easily) into a regular number! So, for instance, your favorite song is contained—quite literally—in one single, 4 million digit number."