[Ldsoss] Dare I say it ... patents ...

[V. B. Hunt]

Steven H. McCown wrote:
> I've found it difficult to understand why some have started to dislike patents so intensely -- when they have been a tenant of US business society for 100's of years.
>
> This article (http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html) helped me understand the other side of the argeument -- which is good.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> "Chance favours the prepared mind."
>           -- Louis Pasteur
> ----------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Ldsoss mailing list
> Ldsoss at lists.ldsoss.org
> http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
>
>   
My problem with that article is the premise that software isn't any more 
an algorithm than a specialized machine.  According to the computational 
theory classes that I've had, a computer is nothing more than a 
generalized machine that can follow instructions for mathematical 
algorithms.  This means that the software is nothing more than a set of 
instructions that make up the mathematical algorithm.  This article 
makes the unbelievable claim that the mathematical algorithm and the 
machine that implements such an algorithm are one and the same.  The 
following simple test that I learned in second grade applies here:  If 
you can hold it or touch it with your hand, it is concretely physical 
(traditionally patentable); if you can hold it in your thoughts and can 
make symbols on paper to represent it but can't physically touch it, 
then it is abstract (copyright-able and trademark-able, but not patentable).

Let me illustrate with a simple example.  A bubble sort algorithm is 
pretty cut and dried.  There are only a few different ways you can write 
the code to make a bubble sort algorithm and still have it work like a 
bubble sort.  On the other hand, there are hundreds (if not thousands) 
of ways to build a computational machine that will properly interpret  
the code and produce the desired results.  The machine end of it has to 
put together millions (billions???) of transistors in some unique way 
that can interpret the code, whereas, the algorithm itself is an 
abstract idea laid out symbolically on paper (or in electrons) that 
simply tells the machine what to do.  You cannot hold a bubble sort 
algorithm in your hand.  You can hold the symbolic instructions in your 
hand, but you cannot hold the algorithm itself.  You cannot touch it; 
however, you can touch the computer.  You can move it around.  Software 
is nothing more than a bunch of abstract ideas collected in a way to be 
useful.  The difference is as real as the difference between concrete 
objects and abstract ideas.

Now, having stated my problem with a major premise of the article, I 
would say that software patents still would not be bad as long as they 
were more limited in time length than almost any other kind of patent 
(say approximately 5 years) and applied only to the complete product or 
a substantial portion of the product that makes it unique from any 
other.  The reason I say this is because even if the idea is abstract, 
it can still be a commercially viable product and if certain persons 
want the unique protections of a patent, they should have it for their 
software product; however, the industry changes fast enough that such 
products lose most commercial viability within 5 years.  Such a patent 
system would also encourage the original patent holder to create major 
new innovations in the product before the patent would run out so that 
they would have a new commercially viable and competitive product 
available before their old product passed into the public domain.

This is just my two cents on the issue.

Brice