🚀 go-pugleaf

Joel Peterson <joel@odin-consulting.com> writes:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > I think most people can agree that mathematical knowledge should not
> > be patentable. But:
> > 
> > * The means of performing a computation is mathematical knowledge.
> > 
> > * Any possible scope of a "software patent" is a means of performing a
> > computation. All computations that can be performed by a computer are
> > mathematical, whether or not you express them that way. Inside, the
> > computer is just pushing bits.
> > 
> > * Therefore software is mathematical knowledge.
> > 
> > * Therefore software patents ought not be permitted.
> > 
> 
> I used to be opposed to software patents and this was one of my main
> arguments.  However, if you really think about it, the argument is less
> persuasive.
> 
> The problem with the argument is that if you try hard enough, just about
> anything can be dismissed as mathematical knowledge.  In fact, the
> logical extension of your argument is that anything that you can do on a
> computer cannot be patentable since it is just an extension of
> mathematical knowledge.
> 
> Many physical inventions are first fully simulated by computer prior to
> being built.  In what way does a simulation differ from a computer
> program?  Are these inventions to be denied patents?
> 
> You can claim that physical inventions are patentable because they apply
> mathematical knowledge to do actual work, but making such a claim while
> insisting that software should not be patentable is implying that
> software doesn't do actual work.  I contend that software does do actual
> work, and thus should be patentable.

Patents are evil and immoral always and everywhere, and only evil bastards 
claim patents. Those people need to be shunned and boycotted all the way.

	Klaus Schilling