Hacker News Reader

Comment by SkyMarshal | Hacker News Reader

TLDR: There's no way to tldr this, it's a pretty awesome essay. It's possibly the most extensive and elaborate essay I've ever read on an actual web page instead of a PDF or journal. Basically the author says:

"This article provides a detailed factual explanation of why software is mathematics, complete with the references in mathematical and computer science literature. It also includes a detailed factual explanation of why mathematics is speech, complete once again with references."

The implication being that if software is mathematics (and/or speech), it can't be patented. IANAL but I've suspected that a clear and elaborate delineation of the equivalence of software and math/logic has been one big things missing in this debate, and its absence has allowed patent trolls to prosper much more than they would have otherwise.

Does anyone know of any other efforts like this to show software == math == logic?

View on HN

As I recall software == math == logic was one of the principles behind the Benson and Flook decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Then came Diehr, which didn't say anything had changed, but it was opportunistically read as if something had changed. Software is patentable today because our legal system is inconsistent. Law is not law.

In Benson and Flook, the claimed inventions were on algorithms and NOT tied to a machine.

In Diehr, the inventor claimed "algorithm + machine" where machine was a computer. The Court looks at a computer as an infinitely configurable machine, with each new software algorithm creating a new invention.

That is the distinction that the courts make between Benson/Flook and Diehr, which has allowed "software" patents to exist.

That's grossly inaccurate.

The rest of the Diehr patent included a combination of elements claimed to be novel, not a general-purpose computer.

The novelty was using a computer to do this, which no one had done before. Prior to this invention, curing rubber was done manually.

Also, from my understanding an infinitely configurable computer and general-purpose computer aren't the same thing. Infinitely configurable means a new machine every time new software is installed, which would allow the invention to fall within the patent statutes. A general-purpose computer is not a new machine, has already been invented, and therefore trying to patent an "algorithm + GPC" would mean a patent on the algorithm, which is outside patent protection.

Your description of the claimed novelty differs wildly from the majority opinion in Diehr: http://brlewis.com/y/2004/diehr.htm

According to the respondents, the continuous measuring of the temperature inside the mold cavity, the feeding of this information to a digital computer which constantly recalculates the cure time, and the signaling by the computer to open the press, are all new in the art.

That isn't how I read the opinion. How would you describe the claimed novelty?

From the first line of the opinion, "We granted certiorari to determine whether a process for curing synthetic rubber which includes in several of its steps the use of a mathematical formula and a programmed digital computer is patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).

Rehnquist, who wrote the majority opinion, said it right there we are talking about "formula + computer."

Claim 1 of the patent itself reads, "1. A method of operating a rubber-molding press for precision molded compounds with the aid of a digital computer, comprising..." Diehr at Footnote 5. The formula is the Arrenius equation (everyone already did this), and then Diehr added a computer for continuous monitoring, calculating, and output (the novelty).

Diehr themselves claimed in their arguments that their novelty to is "the continuous measuring of the temperature inside the mold cavity, the feeding of this information to a digital computer which constantly recalculates the cure time, and the signaling by the computer to open the press..." Diehr at 178-179.

EDIT: You edited your previous comment to include the same line as me. It seems as though we actually agree on what was novel here.

The continuous measuring of the temperature inside the mold cavity (without having to open the mold) distinguishes the Diehr patent from what we call a software patent. Actually, even the "using a computer to do it" part is different.

Most software patents are essentially an algorithm attached to a general-purpose computer. This relationship cannot be claimed to be novel. Diehr could at least claim that their device as a whole was novel and nonobvious (though the Supreme Court case didn't examine those questions).

You began with "there's no way to tldr this" then moved on with "Basically the author says" and sumarised it?

The obvious meaning to me is "Here's a summary. But no summary could really do justice to this article. You should read it."

Exactly.

Yeah, I was in a hurry as I was writing it and my brain got ahead of my typing and I completely forgot to add this line after my quotation of the author:

> Then he goes on to do exactly that throughout the rest of the article.

Yes it somewhat contradicts my assertion that there's no way to tldr it, but good tldr's usually condense not just the author's thesis but some of the most pertinent details as well. But in this case that is very difficult, at best.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com