🚀 go-pugleaf

In aus.computers.linux Bill Unruh <unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> <telford@xenon.triode.net.au> writes:
> ]statutory law states that software is patentable, and our law
> ]explicitly states that mathematical formulas are NOT patentable.

> NOr are they patentable in the US. The software patents are not patents of
> mathematical fomulas, they are patents on the use of software to accomplish
> some task. They may be based on formulas, but then so is everything. 
> Whether or not software should be patentable is a valid argument. But
> saying that software is a "mathematical formula" is not.

That depends on how narrowly you want to define "mathematical formula".
After all, there is a large branch of mathematics known as applied
mathematics and its practitioners still go around calling themselves
mathematicians. Strangely enough, they use their formulas in an applied
manner and often end up involved with software.

Sure you can decide that a formula is no longer a formula when someone
finds an application for it -- after all where you choose to draw the line
is largely arbitrary. The point is that once you decide to go for this
definition, can you find any formula that is not patentable?

	- Tel