Re: Why are software patents wrong?

[threeseas]

Bruce Lewis wrote:
> threeseas <timrueAT@mindspringDOT.com> writes:
>
>
> > Bruce Lewis wrote:
> >
> > > This has all been fully explained before.  Why don't you take a look
> > > at
> > > GOTTSCHALK v. BENSON, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) and tell us what part you have
> > > questions about?
> > > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=409&page=63
> >
> > 1972...... yeah right..
> >
> > wasn't this like before the Y2K problem?.... oh, well yes it was!
>
>
> I don't recall any changes to the U.S. constitution due to the Y2K
> problem, nor any changes to patent law, nor any changes in Supreme Court
> opinion on this matter.  I know there is controversy on this last part;
> many think the Court was lying or mistaken in writing in their Diehr
> opinion that they were using the same principles they used in the Benson
> case.  Others think the Court was lying or mistaken that their Diehr
> opinion would not "allow a competent draftsman to evade the recognized
> limitations on the type of subject matter eligible for patent
> protection."  I actually think the Supreme Court was right.
>
>
> > Point being, there exist this problem along the lines of
> > nearsightedness, shortsightdness...
>
>
> They were using principles as old as the Constitution, and none of those
> principles have changed since.
>
>
> > this doesn't change the fact that there is a identifiable and
> > appliable physics to abstraction creating and use.
>
>
> One could just as easily say there is a physics to mathematics. Axioms
> can be viewed as particles that exert forces on each other and interact
> in independently observable ways.  However, there are two reasons why
> mathematics can't be patented.  Both have to do with the authority the
> Constitution gives the Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and
> useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
> exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
>
> 1. Experts agree that mathematians are not inventors, even though
>    writing a mathematical proof may feel like inventing.
>
> 2. Exclusive rights do not promote the progress of mathematics.  Quite
>    the contrary, mathematicians measure the worth of their theorems by
>    how others use them, and would be shooting themselves in the foot to
>    declare exclusive rights.
>
> Not coincidentally, these are the same reasons why software is
> inherently not patentable.
>
> 1. Algorithms are mathematical constructs.  As you use a specific
>    language to construct a specific program, it may feel like inventing
>    a machine, but the algorithm is an independent concept that is not
>    invented, thus not patentable.  You can copyright the program,
>    though.
>
> 2. The software industry progresses just fine without patent protection,
>    so extending patent protection to software is not needed to promote
>    progress.
>
> People could already see that point 2 was true in 1972.  It was even
> more obvious by 1981 that "this industry is growing by leaps and bounds
> without it."  Since that time, we have even more abundant evidence that
> every idea that significantly promotes progress is based on open
> standards.  TCP/IP, SMTP, HTTP, HTML are prime examples.  Apple made
> progress by copying ideas from Xerox.  Microsoft made progress by
> copying ideas from Apple.  Do you think Apple would have licensed its
> ideas to Microsoft?  Progress would have been stifled.
>
> There you have it, the reason why the U.S. Supreme Court and other
> reasonable people agree that our government has no authority to grant
> patents on software.  Hopefully someday those scofflaws at the USPTO
> will fall into line.

not only does mathmatics try to describe physics of the physical world, 
but mathmatics itself is made up of abstractions that must adhear to the 
physics of abstraction. With this in mind, I do wonder if the statement 
"One could just as easily say there is a physics to mathematics" is 
somehow similiar to the avoidance of the hindu-arabic decimal system by 
saying "how can nothing have value?" avoiding the key element of the 
zero place holder. But yes, there is a physics to mathmatics, as 
mathmatics is of abstractions.

the growing by leaps and bounds without patents on software.... Let me 
suggest that this is probably a facet of abstraction physics that can be 
explained such that it is obvious (just as it is obvious to us today 
that having an empty placeholder enables advanced math --- though we 
don't think about it... its obvious). Perhaps a facet of abstraction 
physics along the lines of advancing by building upon the works of those 
before us ---> word = definition ..... in computer terms,"word" has a 
definition in binary. building upon, building upon, etc... a logical 
progression of the physics of creating and using abstractions?

There is a great deal we have been able to do in advancement, once we 
accepted the hindu-arabic decimal system. Now to establish abstraction 
physics.....where might we go?

What did the zero do, but simply give us another way of looking at a 
subject matter that allowed us to go beyond the prior limitations by 
giving us an easier to apply understanding.

currently software is difficult to understand in terms of copyrights and 
patents..... just like multiplication and division were difficult in 
terms of roman numerals.

When things are made obvious, even those hardest against change will 
come around.... or appear more and more to the public as lost.