Judge Says Mathematical Algorithms Can’t Be Patented

http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/28/judge-says-mathematical-algorithms-cant-be-patented-dismisses-uniloc-claim-against-rackspace/

by soupboy • 13 years ago

408 145 13 years ago

techcrunch.com

auggierose• 13 years ago

So, now we just have to define what exactly a mathematical algorithm is. Good luck with that.

muglug• 13 years ago

Now we just have to rewrite all "patented" algorithms in lambda-calculus. That should be easy...

chimeracoder• 13 years ago

It's not that bad. "All" we have to do is implement everything in Lisp, since Lisp can be reduced trivially to the lambda calculus.

Once again, Lisp saves the day! ;)

EDIT: I'm totally looking forward to experienced Lisp and Haskell programmers like me being in high demand for their legendary skills... at invalidating patents!

cbsmith• 13 years ago

I'm pretty sure we're getting a grossly over simplified description of both the patent and the ruling.

betterunix4• 13 years ago

Alan Turing did that already; see his solution to the Entscheidungsproblem.

riazrizvi• 13 years ago

Have I travelled back to 1972?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson

lgray• 13 years ago

Or 1897, when pi was almost legally changed to 3.2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

rsbrown• 13 years ago

Well, this is how our system works. There is nothing stopping me from filing suit against you for posting this comment because it hurt my feelings. Then the judge throws it out because there's no basis in the law for my claim.

fatman• 13 years ago

Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim? Including reading the complaint, researching and drafting an answer, and associated communications, figure 30 hours of attorney time. Wilmer Hale? Figure $400/hr.

$12K to respond to a claim so frivolous that it was dismissed instantly in the friggin' Eastern District of Texas.

Hope RedHat can get some fees back from these fools.

greyfade7• 13 years ago

We never left 1971.

joe_the_user• 13 years ago

In a society chalk full of rent-takers, you would expect that when one of these rent-takers "imagines a promising new field", their first impulse is to see if they can move their figurative fences little further out to extract a "reward" for their "discovery".

jostmey• 13 years ago

Wait, so are Software patents acceptable but patents on mathematical algorithms not okay? Where is the rational in this? Granted, the patent in question is absurd to a new extreme (trying to patent floating point numbers).

claudius• 13 years ago

I don’t quite get it either – though I am generally not opposed to software patents on complex software, nor for ‘maths patents’ on complex algorithms. It is just the trivial ones that get annoying over time…

On the other hand, most ‘engineering patents’ were probably also quite trivial during the first few years of the modern patent system – but you don’t necessarily have to repeat mistakes :)

jhaywood• 13 years ago

From what I learned of math, all mathematical algorithms are eventually refactored until they are "trivial". Trivial is a mathematician's favorite word.

greyfade7• 13 years ago

Mathematics are reasoned to be "a law of nature," and "abstract ideas," and so they are explicitly excluded as unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101.

Algorithms are established to be mathematics under Case Law, particularly Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197; and Flook, 437 U.S. at 585, 198 USPQ at 195.

Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-178; establishes that if the patent is for a particular application of an abstract idea, but not for the abstract idea itself, it may be patentable.

jlgreco3• 13 years ago

> Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-178; establishes that if the patent is for a particular application of an abstract idea, but not for the abstract idea itself, it may be patentable.

So what does that mean, "a^2 + b^2 = c^2" cannot be patented, but "using 'a^2 + b^2 = c^2' to find the length^2 of the hypotenuse of a right triangle" in theory could be (were it "invented" today of course)?

AnthonyMouse3• 13 years ago

>Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-178; establishes that if the patent is for a particular application of an abstract idea, but not for the abstract idea itself, it may be patentable.

Worth pointing out is that the patent in Diehr claimed a method for curing rubber and contemplated a collection of specialized hardware. Not exactly pure software.

Do you know of any case other than Diehr where the Supreme Court has actually sanctioned a software patent?

pbhjpbhj2• 13 years ago

>the patent in question is absurd to a new extreme //

Not really new nor an extreme. In the past someone claimed they had a patent on arabic numerals that covered use of them in representation of numbers ... the application was refused ...

tzs• 13 years ago

> Wait, so are Software patents acceptable but patents on mathematical algorithms not okay? Where is the rational in this?

Compare to other fields. Patents on drugs are allowed, for example, but patents on the laws of chemistry are not. Patents on mechanical devices are allowed, but patents on physical laws are not.

jlgreco3• 13 years ago

Could you patent the application of a law of physics/chemistry, where a new one discovered? Or could Feynman have patented using Feynman diagrams to visualize interactions between particles?

betterunix4• 13 years ago

The difference is that an algorithms patent is a patent on a mathematics; a patent on a drug is not a patent on a law of nature. That is why software patents try to make clever end-runs around the restrictions on patents by saying things like, "...on a computer."

codegeek• 13 years ago

Seems like uniloc is willing to file lawsuits without any considerations. see below for an interesting Q&A on uniloc's site:

Q. How many additional lawsuits does Uniloc plan to file?

A. Uniloc plans to defend our patents aggressively whenever they are infringed. This protects our business and our shareholder value. In our view, it’s the right thing to do.

smrtinsert• 13 years ago

'mathematical algorithms' is a little broad.

voidlogic2• 13 years ago

Good thing all source code is just very convenient mathematical notation describing an algorithm... This to me is the most fundamental reason software patents are insane.

baddox5• 13 years ago

Not to mention that any piece of digital media (an MP3, JPEG, etc.) is just a big integer.

nealabq• 13 years ago

Your DNA is also a big integer. You're a just a number.

anigbrowl• 13 years ago

pbhjpbhj2• 13 years ago

In Europe this is solved by not allowing patenting of mathematics or raw algorithms but allowing patents that cover the technical application of such things.

In certain fields the "technical effect" required [it's not called that any more, the test is more nuanced now] is, shall we say, less obvious than others. [Digital] Image processing/codecs/compression for example always seemed very close to just maths.

epistasis• 13 years ago

It's the same way in the US, one doesn't patent the mathematics or algorithm, but the application of an algorithm in a particular field. Discussions on patents are usually so low-information that important details like this are elided. However, I can get behind the point that if your worldview is limited to just software, this can be distinction without a difference.

itsprofitbaron• 13 years ago

In Europe, they tried to solve it by saying inventions which are computer implemented and only solve a business problem instead of a technical problem are considered unpatentable[1].

However, what you are saying is the same in the US its why patent applications say "A method for performing SOMETHING by REASON"

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_258/03

sthu111824• 13 years ago

The Federal Circuit en banc decision on CLS Bank v. Alice is coming out soon. This case will likely give guidance on a 101 patent subject matter test for software patents (which the Supreme Court would then overrule). The certified questions are:

a. What test should the court adopt to determine whether a computer-implemented invention is a patent ineligible "abstract idea"; and when, if ever, does the presence of a computer in a claim lend patent eligibility to an otherwise patent-ineligible idea?

b. In assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of a computer-implemented invention, should it matter whether the invention is claimed as a method, system, or storage medium; and should such claims at times be considered equivalent for § 101 purposes?

Gorbzel• 13 years ago

Upvotes for being the most relevant of any comment on this thread, but it just reflects what the problem is. If history is any guidance, the Federal Circuit will create something rather patent-friendly (brought to you by the team who brought you State Street Bank) and, if it's a big enough deal, SCOTUS will step in to overrule.

Of course, followers of the court will note that if recent other cases are any indication, the justices will punt on the actual question. The problem is, as Justice Kennedy notes

"the patent law faces a great challenge in striking the balance between protecting inventors and not granting monopolies over procedures that others would discover by independent, creative application of general principles. Nothing in this opinion should be read to take a position on where that balance ought to be struck. " Bilski, 130 S. Ct. 3228

Yet of course, the court is way too busy dealing with Obamacare, gay marriage and pharma inventions to care about software patents. Heck, it's their constitutional role not to actually help the software industry out of this patent war going on. Right Justice Breyer?

"In consequence, we must hesitate before departing from established general legal rules lest a new protective [patent] rule that seems to suit the needs of one field produce unforeseen results in another. And we must recognize the role of Congress in crafting more finely tailored rules where necessary" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. 1305 (2012)

Of course, as AIA showed, Congress is more worried about posturing on patents than taking any of the decisive action that those who disfavor the status quo in software patents would like to see. So instead, the industry continues doing what it's always done, finding ways to monopolize technology for profit. And the reddits, Hacker News and open sources folks of the world will complain, but it won't matter. Again and again and again, and it's just really tiring at this point.

</bitter IP guy>

deelowe• 13 years ago

Good thing algorithms aren't patented and instead it's the application of the algorithm that gets the grant. Most are written as "a method for performing X by doing Y."

IMO, the issue with software patents isn't that businesses patent algorithms or code(which they don't do). Instead, it's that technology moves too fast for the monopoly time that's granted. When it comes to software, what's innovative 5 years ago is common place and often a commodity today.

Tycho• 13 years ago

Maybe there should be some burden of proof that many people have tried to solve the problem at hand but not come up with the solution in the patent application. For instance, if you invent a new sorting algorithm today, it would be reasonable to patent it; whereas if you invent a new voice activation scheme for a smartphone, it would be unreasonable to patent it because the whole field is relatively new.

baddox5• 13 years ago

What's the difference between "a method for sorting an array of integers by doing <steps of Quicksort>" and simply patenting Quicksort? Or do you mean something more specific to a particular product, like "a method for sorting a list of restaurant recommendations by doing <steps of some machine learning algorithm>"? Either way, all I'm seeing is algorithms.

darkarmani2• 13 years ago

> it's the application of the algorithm that gets the grant

And that should simply be copyright for the expression of the algorithm.

tocomment2• 13 years ago

Speaking of this I'd love to create a utility to convert a mathmatical formaula (in latex or wiki format) into a Python function.

Would that be possible? I think it would go so far in helping me understand formulas I read in papers.

hackinthebochs4• 13 years ago

Absolutely. Although as a programmer and someone who reads mathematical papers I'm not sure how much of a benefit this would be. The hard part in understanding isn't any particular step, its comprehending how each step fits together as a whole. I don't immediately see how the translation would help this.

civilian• 13 years ago

I think the NumPy people are the best team for making this. We should lobby them!

dinkumthinkum5• 13 years ago

I'm not sure how good that would be for helping you understand the formulas. I think they would probably make them more obscure, especially with optimizations. What if you tried to teach yourself Linear Algebra just by reading the source code of Intel's MKL (if you had access to it); I don't think you'd get as far as if you just studied a traditional math based approach.

SilasX• 13 years ago

>Good thing all source code is just very convenient mathematical notation describing an algorithm

Only really true for pure functions (i.e. same input -> same output + side effects), I think. A lot of the code in actual practice is stuff like "update this bit of object state", "set this server variable so that it does this"; and it really doesn't generalize beyond a very specific platform.

Those may still technically count as algorithms, but not in the sense people normally think of them.

Although the ones they try to patent generally are of the "pure function" type, so it may be a distinction without a difference.

betterunix4• 13 years ago

Funny thing about that:

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf

Program code has been abstract math since the very beginning of computer science.

dinkumthinkum5• 13 years ago

It's the "technically" that matters, though.

woodchuck64• 13 years ago

ICs are the same... except the ink used for mathematical notation happens to conduct electricity.

api• 13 years ago

Does this invalidate certain crypto patents, like the NTRU patents or the RSA patent (if it were still in effect)?

tlarkworthy• 13 years ago

yes until you append "... as a method for encrypting communications" (an application of said mathmatics)

pagekicker• 13 years ago

Are algorithms invented, or discovered? Did they, like geometry, exist in a platonic state before human thought? See Neal Stephenson's great ANATHEM.

jwb119• 13 years ago

Some very basic background from a famous patent case (Diamond v. Chakrabarty):

"Anything under the sun that is made by man [is patentable] . . . . [T]he laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable . . . a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are manifestations of nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none."

duaneb• 13 years ago

Are algorithms invented or discovered? It's a curious question regardless of this situation.

chii2• 13 years ago

i would say it is discovered.

prudhvis• 13 years ago

If only the loosing party have to pay for all the legal fees.

bdg• 13 years ago

Can we not express nearly everything in existence as a formal system?

lisper2• 13 years ago

Does anyone know which patent is being asserted here? I thought Uniloc only had one patent, and it was related to try-and-buy DRM. But the description in the article says "processing of floating point numbers by the Linux operating system was a patent violation" which doesn't seem to fit. Is there another Uniloc patent?

dangrossman• 13 years ago

This is the patent at issue:

> Method and apparatus for handling overflow and underflow in processing floating-point numbers

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...

lisper2• 13 years ago

Thanks.

But this is still perplexing: Surely, Linux just uses IEEE754 floating point, which predates this patent by 15 years?

joksnet• 13 years ago

Under "Related Art" says:

> In an effort to unify methods employed in computer systems for performing binary floating-point arithmetic, the IEEE in the early 1980's standardized computer floating-point numbers. > [...] > In reshaping the IEEE format, the present invention retains most of its benefits while offering the microprocessor designer and the real-time programmer a much cleaner and more efficient implementation.

For what I understand, is an extension of the IEEE standard.

polarix• 13 years ago

Oh no, now there's really no incentive to find new ones. We're doomed.

ttrreeww2• 13 years ago

I guess Mathematicians will never get rich then :(

beagle32• 13 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harris_Simons

ttrreeww2• 13 years ago

That's a Wall Street guy. What is your point? Everyone go to Wall Street and contribute to society in a positive way? :)

alexvr• 13 years ago

I personally think copyright law provides enough protection for software. I think patents would actually harm innovation in the software world.

Algorithms are inherently protected, anyway - they're not like clever mechanical solutions that can be reverse-engineered by anyone with eyes and a brain; they're usually close-sourced when the author wants them to be. Patents may be necessary to protect products with transparent functionality, but software usually doesn't fit that bill unless it's deliberately open-sourced.

Even if you developed a strong AI algorithm that will change the world, there should be competition. It's not like Microsoft will hire a few engineers to rapidly develop something that transcends yours; it would be a reverse engineering challenge to any competition.

What if algorithms behind network protocols were patented? Computers would still be novelties and corporate tools, I think.

rayiner6• 13 years ago

So patents solve the incentive problem, just like copyright. Copyright solves the incentive problem when "writing masses of software" is the hard part. Patents solve the incentive problem when "figuring out what software to write" is the hard part. Take things like garbage collectors. Even the most complex are only 15,000-20,000 lines of code. Writing those lines of code was the easy part--it was figuring out what that code should do, and doing all the testing to figure out what worked and what didn't that was the hard part.

edmccard2• 13 years ago

>Copyright solves the incentive problem when "writing masses of software" is the hard part.

That seems backward to me--when you've already figured out what to make, and the hard part is producing mass quantities of it--isn't that what patents are designed to protect?

>Writing those lines of code was the easy part--it was figuring out what that code should do, and doing all the testing to figure out what worked and what didn't that was the hard part.

Similarly, typing the words of a novel is easy; figuring out what to write is hard, which is a good reason for copyright protections, but I'm not sure if it has any bearing on the issue of patents.

skizm2• 13 years ago

Math can't be patented and yet you can get a patent for code snippets? This sounds absurd since all code boils down to mathematical manipulation of binary numbers. I guess if you abstract something enough you can get away with patenting it? Can we patent methods of preparing food now? How about ways to put something together (think ikea)? Why hasn't anyone patented something like the smartphone yet people can patent something as arbitrary as memory management techniques? I would say I hate our patent system but I'm just too damn confused by it to form an opinion or explain why I hate it.

Draco6slayer3• 13 years ago

You can't patent atoms, but you can patent compounds made of those atoms, like a new plastic. Or, if those compounds are already open, you can patent products that combine those compounds into a new shape, like a new blender. You can't patent the human voice or melodies, but you can patent a song. You can't declare that because someone's. product uses raw materials that are patent-free, that their final product isn't really an invention. Every thing is built on some other platform, so that would remove patents entirely.

Ilmesnkie_Jones• 13 years ago

A song isn't an invention so you would have to copyright it not patent it.

skizm2• 13 years ago

Why haven't people patented methods for cooking food and sued other restaurants for suspected patent infringement? Patenting solutions to common problems (programming or otherwise) seems crazy to me.

acchow• 13 years ago

Does this mean I can use Fountain Codes now?

darkhorn• 13 years ago

Page Rank?

rogueSkib• 13 years ago

You may not be able to patent math, but certain numbers are still illegal!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime

betterunix4• 13 years ago

So no more software patents? Or at least no more cryptography patents?

drakaal• 13 years ago

This would overturn every video/audio/data compression patent. Every Encryption Patent. It would over turn every Google Search Ranking Patent. It would limit patents to physical things.

Under that system even many physical devices would not be patent-able. The math that goes in to Battery charging optimization. Silicon Chips would not be able to patent XOR, NOR, OR, Gate logic.

This judge doesn't have the authority to make such changes to patent law.

marssaxman• 13 years ago

Alas. What a relief that would be.

inopinatus• 13 years ago

All algorithms are theorems. All theorems can be represented by unique numbers (Gödel numbers). In the abstract sense they exist at all, all numbers exist prior to their use. Therefore all algorithms are discoveries, not inventions.

Ok, this argument sounds clever at first but is actually trite, being excessively reductionist and ignoring that some intellectual creativity occurs in most discovery. Most obviously it motivates a better proper definition of the term "invention". Patentable inventions should always be applications of technology, not the technology itself.

The whole purpose of patents is to encourage more innovation that benefits economies as a whole, by granting a temporary monopoly to entities to benefit from the process and expense of invention. Standing to sue should be on that basis; transference of rights to another entity should not whitewash that socio-economic responsibility. Everyone with distate for the NPEs understands this.

ateeqs• 13 years ago

I'm waiting for Uniloc's silly patent 5,490,216 to expire in a couple of years. How can they not even have a reference product sold for this?

mckoss• 13 years ago

The true problem is obviousness. Any machine is reducible to an algorithm is reducible to an integer. They are all the same. It's ridiculous to say that algorithms are "discovered" and not "made by man".

There needs to be a better procedure for throwing out all the stupid obvious or trivial patents - but allow ones that have required the blood, sweat and tears of their inventor to create.

nammaki1• 13 years ago

i play world of warcraft iwant an hack for reset server for reset bosses in the server in 2.4.3

Judge Says Mathematical Algorithms Can’t Be Patented

Related Stories