Journal Journal: On algorithm patenting
My arguments are based around the fact that:
- Mathematical fact cannot be patented.
- Code copyrights are allowed.
- Monopolies are against the law
My argument is based on the idea that mathematical fact cannot be patented because it cannot. You cannot patent any idea that can be resolved with modern mathematics, which is a rule that matches most modern algorithms (if not all).
Proof of this fact is in the computer itself. Math is all that the computer knows how to do. Every command that is sent to the computer must be reduced to 0's and 1's, and on these a basic set of math commands (the processor code) must alter them in some basic way to create useable code. Because computer programs, at their base, are simply math, This is proof that every algorithm must be mathematically formulated in some way.
The reason that I argue that code copyrights are allowed is because while algoritmical patents are clearly bogus, the different ways in which people reach the same conclusion should be protected ONLY because we live in a capitalist society (I'm clearly a socialist: LINUX). People need to make money on their result, but it has to be good in order for it to be worth anything. Thus, If an [entity: individual or corporation] spends time and money on code, what they need to ensure is quality. Great example: Fritz. There are many free programs for chess out there: crafty, gnuchess. However, none compare to the pure power of Fritz. Now, the first 'entity' to program a chess game on a computer could have patented the display of a logical chess position, checking for mate (however they wanted) the logical resolution of legal moves on a chessboard, and whatever else. Then they could have completely stymied competition. However, if that had happened, then they would have created a software monopoly, because all moves on the chessboard are mathematical fact. They are resolved through almost the same basic mathematical checks no matter how they are programmed. This is why I added in my final statement:
Monopolies are illegal. Having the money and resources to battle out the creation and challenges of patents are limited to those who have. Thus, many creative units are hurt by the competitive nature of the big boys. In other words, software (algorithm) patents are bullying techniques to keep control of the market.
For my final note, I will recap. I believe that software patenting should be illegal because algorithms are based on mathematical fact, but then again, so are physics, you can start there if you want to disprove that one. algorithm patenting prevents competition by stopping someone from doing the same thing in a different way, one that might even be more efficient which is clearly unnacceptable. This prevents competition because so many modern OS concepts are very common between different OS's. The key is that the source can be protected. This prevents people from using the source code to directly port your excellent code. This allows you to protect your investment, because if nobody can code it better, people will be willing to pay for what you have created. Finally, Monopolies are illegal. Simple enough. Imagine if SQL were fully patented by oracle. Noone would be able to port their SQL statements. Anyone who recreated SQL (and the underlying code for it) would be totally messed by the patent royalties. This would clearly create a clear Monopoly for anyone owning the patent.
