🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MERNST.90Jul28233614@emu.lcs.mit.edu> mernst@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Michael Ernst) writes:
(the supreme court sez...
>	We defined "algorithm" as a "procedure for solving a given type of
>	mathematical problem," and we concluded that such an algorithm, or
>	mathematical formula, is like a law of nature, which cannot be the
>	subject of a patent.
>

Let me first say that I oppose software patents, and I have no legal
qualifications... However, I have read a lot about them, and this is my
understanding and opinion:

I don't feel that an algorithm is a law of nature.  I think an algorithm
is either a process, or a device, just like a manufacturing process, or
a gear train.

It seems to me that if one argues that an algorithm is a law of nature,
one could also argue that a gear train is also a law of nature.  A gear train,
or manufacturing process, actually, is an expression of how the laws of 
nature may be obeyed and exploited to achive a particular goal.  The fact
that an algorithm strikes a judge as being an abstract law seems to me
to be a mistake on the judge's part.

About existing patents... the basic criterion used by the Patent Office is
that the patent must be written in such a way as to show the relationship
of the algorithm to the control of a physical device.  In this way it would
be some kind of control mechanism, like a governor.  However, one could
go to some length, after inventing an algorithm, to devise a machine that
the algorithm can control, and then patent it.  I think this may be 
happening.

The reason I feel that algorithms should not be patented goes back to the
very reasons patents exist: to encourage technological creativity.  Patents
aren't really there to guarantee anyone a profit.  They exist to encourage
someone to actually market a device, and _publish_its_secret_workings_for
_posterity_.

After 17 years (or less, if the patent is not maintained), the patent goes
into the public domain.

Without patents, we would have both fewer mechanical inventions,
and what there were would be kept secret.  If the secret died with
the inventor, it would be lost to the world.  Consider, for example,
the document disclosure program, which gives you two years of
patent-like protection for a small fee, and not much hassle.  If
you don't follow through with the patent, it is placed in the public
domain, and the government has the specs for all to see.  The
objective here is to get the inventions into use, and if they are
not used, to give them to the world.

Now, all these reasons exist for algorithms, but I think the algorithm is a
special case:

1 The cost of manufacturing an algorithm is nearly zero.  (I mean copying
software, not writing it in the first place).

2 Algorithms are useful for many purposes.  An algorithm conceived for a
particular use may be readily applied to a completely different problem.

Since a general purpose computer can use any algorithm, the entirety of
the set of algorithms is available to the designer of a particular 
application.  This is not so with patents on physical devices; a designer of
an aircraft engine cannot make much use of a patented hybrid plant!

These two facts sum up what I feel is the very beauty of software.  It is
the ultimate mass-producible product, and there is no cost (inherent) in
including previously invented mechanisms in a new application.

I wonder if anyone has made the argument of what free software could do for
the third world?  Consider that when GNU is released, a third world country
could be set up with a multi-user Unix system, with complete source,
for about $2000 (a 386 SX, hard disk, and some terminals).  Consider that
one of the great strengths of Soviet and mainland Chinese science is in
theoretical studies, because they do not have the cash to buy much hardware --
what could they do in software?  All they need is a relatively cheap 
computer system.  How about agricultural forecasting in tropical countries?

If all these users had to pay a per-user fee for their OS's and applications,
they could not get tenth the amount of work done that they could with
free software.
-- 
Michael D. Crawford
Oddball Enterprises		Consulting for Apple Computer Inc.
606 Modesto Avenue		escher@apple.com
Santa Cruz, CA 95060		Applelink: escher@apple.com@INTERNET#
oddball!mike@ucscc.ucsc.edu	The opinions expressed here are solely my own.

		alias make '/bin/make & rn'