Computational Theory and Patent Law (or, why software patents shouldn't exist)

[miokomioko]

It seems that it's a pretty unfair loophole to state that software can't be patented because it has no physical manifestation when everything else in regards to the process of conceptualizing and creating the software is the same as the physical process without the expending of resources outside of time/energy.

[Darus Grey]

It seems that it's a pretty unfair loophole to state that software can't be patented because it has no physical manifestation when everything else in regards to the process of conceptualizing and creating the software is the same as the physical process without the expending of resources outside of time/energy.

This isn't even true in and of itself, it's a piece of philosophical hyperbole.

Every single bit of computer information does have a physical manifestation, you can trace every piece of information to it's physical representation in stored energy.

[miokomioko]

In the commercial world, I don't think data is considered a physical item.

[Kuya]

From an empirical standpoint, the argument of whether math, in its "essence", exists independently of humans or other sufficiently conscious beings is largely irrelevant. But then again, i do not favour the argument that math exists independent of humans.

Anyway, i don't find the argument for why patents should not necessarily exist for data convincing, i would just prefer to say that it's not worth enforcing.

[dejet]

It's more elementary than that, it's saying that software, being nothing more than an arrangement of mathematics that has been organized by its programmers to provide a desired output, is no more patentable than mathematics itself is. You cannot patent an idea, nor can you patent that which already exists; by its very nature, all mathematical method is intrinsically present within itself, and that which we do not have record of is simply yet to be discovered (take special note here: discovered is not the same as invented).

Most people would probably scoff, because it sounds like you're taking away someone's right to protect their ingenuity, but that isn't the case; simply that you cannot intrinsically protect something that is, for all intents and purposes, a universal constant. What you CAN do as a developer is protect the specific work you have derived (copyright).

When I saw this it made me think about that movie where ford Ripped off the guy who made the intermittent windshield wiper.

[Cadsuane]

From an empirical standpoint, the argument of whether math, in its "essence", exists independently of humans or other sufficiently conscious beings is largely irrelevant. But then again, i do not favour the argument that math exists independent of humans.

Why not? It might be irrelevant but it's funner to talk about than patent laws.

[Eliseos]

I feel like this debate has been visited already for at least 10 pages of the LHC thread.

Yeah, it was. The gist was there are certain mathematical entities that will not change throughout the universe (like the relationship between a circle's radius to its circumference, the concepts of relativity and simultaneity, etc), just that a being's representation of them can be different. It eventually boiled down to what can be described by mathematics, and what can only be described by mathematics, whatever the difference between the two is.

[Norellicus]

This isn't even true in and of itself, it's a piece of philosophical hyperbole.

Every single bit of computer information does have a physical manifestation, you can trace every piece of information to it's physical representation in stored energy.

Ergo, you can patent the device that houses the software/data. Not the data itself.

[Darus Grey]

In the commercial world, I don't think data is considered a physical item.

I don't disagree that we certainly perceive it that way, but in reality it is a physical item(as are all things really, virtual items or "kinds" don't actually exist as the metaphysical constructs we assign to them).

[Cadsuane]

Yeah, it was. The gist was there are certain mathematical entities that will not change throughout the universe (like the relationship between a circle's radius to its circumference, the concepts of relativity and simultaneity, etc), just that a being's representation of them can be different. It eventually boiled down to what can be described by mathematics, and what can only be described by mathematics, whatever the difference between the two is.

What pages were it on?

[Norellicus]

Yeah, you'll have to forgive me if I'm playing syndicated BG reruns here, I fell off the LHC thread when they got into high physics and it's hard to get back into an amorphous discussion like that once you step out of it.

[Eliseos]

That thread is such a clusterfuck, I'm pretty sure that specific debate was sandwiched between another or two conversations about entirely different things lol. I'll try to find it.

[Eliseos]

I fell off the LHC thread when they got into high physics and it's hard to get back into an amorphous discussion like that once you step out of it.

The thread itself usually has a new topic every day or every couple days. Usually someone posts a science article and everyone else responds to it. Or Khamsin changes the thread title and Miz and Woozie think gay thoughts.

[Kuya]

Why not? It might be irrelevant but it's funner to talk about than patent laws.

Some anti-science reactionaries would make the same argument that i am making for the purpose of saying that 'science doesn't know everything'. My perspective is not very nuanced at all, i simply find the argument that math exists independent of humans to be logically unsound and claims of trascendental truth offend my anti-religious sensibilities. I've also seen the 'it has always existed, we just discovered it' argument used for other areas (such as human sexuality) and thus it makes me have a reflexively contrarian reaction.

[Cadsuane]

Some anti-science reactionaries would make the same argument that i am making for the purpose of saying that 'science doesn't know everything'. My perspective is not very nuanced at all, i simply find the argument that math exists independent of humans to be logically unsound and claims of trascendental truth offend my anti-religious sensibilities. I've also seen the 'it has always existed, we just discovered it' argument used for other areas (such as human sexuality) and thus it makes me have a reflexively contrarian reaction.

Oh yes, fair enough. Well, would you agree that if there's any such thing as truth, then it must exist independent of the mind?

[miokomioko]

Oh shit, we gettin' metaphysical up in here.

[Mojo]

My participation in this thread: Patentented genes? What the fuck

=

I am cautious of patents.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts about it.

[Eliseos]

K found the start of it, I have no idea where it ends.

Starts pretty much with the second post on that page by bigrougabagel.

http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showt...t=77599&page=9

[Norellicus]

The thread itself usually has a new topic every day or every couple days. Usually someone posts a science article and everyone else responds to it. Or Khamsin changes the thread title and Miz and Woozie think gay thoughts.

I just read the last page or two and lol @ this

Edit: Can you permalink the first post by him? That link gives me no posts by bigrougabagel, probably difference in PPP settings.

[Cadsuane]

K found the start of it, I have no idea where it ends.

Starts pretty much with the second post on that page by bigrougabagel.

http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showt...t=77599&page=9

Thanks.