I'm not familiar with the patent laws in the U.S., but I believe that mathematical functions and basic numerical relationships and algorithms are classified as basic laws of nature (like physics and chemistry) and they cannot be patented.

For example, algebra, geometry, calculus (differentiation and integration), Fourier Series, Laplace Transforms, natural and man made logarithms, factorials, and other contrived functions could not have been patented.

 

I'm not familiar with the patent laws in the U.S., but I believe that mathematical functions and basic numerical relationships and algorithms are classified as basic laws of nature (like physics and chemistry) and they cannot be patented.

For example, algebra, geometry, calculus (differentiation and integration), Fourier Series, Laplace Transforms, natural and man made logarithms, factorials, and other contrived functions could not have been patented.

Ah....but mere possession of certain numbers is illegal.

 

Ah....but mere possession of certain numbers is illegal.

If the "numbers" are part of any security sensitive scheme, they can be considered as private property and subject to legally imposed control. For example, it is illegal to possess or disclose the numbers that can be entered on the key pad of the entrance control system for a building.

However, those numbers are drastically different from those used in a mathematical function.

 

Ah....but mere possession of certain numbers is illegal.

In the old days, unauthorized teaching of the Pythagoras theorem was punishable by death.

 

In partial defense of patent trolls:

If a patent is valid, then I consider it morally acceptable to enforce the patent against an infringer whether the infrigner was aware of the patent or not. It was the infringer's responsibility to check for possible infringement.

Consider the inventor who patents an invention but does not have the financial means to collect from infringers directly. For example, if you discover Microsoft using your patented invention in one of their products. Most likely they can drag things on for a very long time. In that case the only way the inventor can profit from his invention is to sell or license his patent to a so-called patent troll that has the necessary financial backing to pursue enforcement.

The aspect of this practice that I find troublesome and I think that is at the root of the hatred of the trolls is that often enforcement does not take place until a long time after a particular invention enters production, and either the patent is not noticed (referred to as "submarine patents") or worse in my book is the patent grantee or assignee who knows of the infringement but keeps quiet until the infringer builds of a huge liability by profiting from the use of the invention before notifying the infringer. Those are the real trolls.

 

... worse in my book is the patent grantee or assignee who knows of the infringement but keeps quiet until the infringer builds of a huge liability by profiting from the use of the invention before notifying the infringer. Those are the real trolls.

Hmmm... I'm not sure I agree. Suppose you discover your competitor is infringing on your patent. You have a number of choices of how to proceed, ranging from "do nothing" to "all out war". It's risky to delay but if your analysis suggests you can damage your competitor more by waiting, I don't see much wrong with that. Showing the market that the competitor is a thief has value.

I have to admit my views on this may be skewed by having competed against a serial infringer that routinely stole technology from us.

 

I'm not familiar with the patent laws in the U.S., but I believe that mathematical functions and basic numerical relationships and algorithms are classified as basic laws of nature (like physics and chemistry) and they cannot be patented.

Correct. Math and algorithms are specifically excluded from patentability. Computer programs can be protected by copyright (as essentially a work of art), but not by patent.

The patenting of naturally-occurring DNA sequences required a change in patent law, to distinguish DNA as different than math. I'm not sure there's much logic to it other than that the patent office wanted to encourage investment in sequencing DNA and connecting the sequence to its biological function. Surely that's a good thing for the world to learn. If getting a sequence and its function was cheap and easy as turning over a stone, the ruling might have been different.

 

Suppose you discover your competitor is infringing on your patent. You have a number of choices of how to proceed, ranging from "do nothing" to "all out war"...

As an inventor, patent holder, and small business owner, there really aren't "a number of choices". Upon discovery, the only real (initial) choice is whether or not to send a cease and desist letter. Beware: if you do, the infringer may then choose to sue you for a declaration of non-infringement. Either way, you're either spending lots of money or allowing the infringement to continue (also costing you money).

Patent litigation is for the wealthy.

 

Patent litigation is for the wealthy.

Agreed. That's actually more defense of the "waiting" option that Dick was disparaging as trolling. If you can convince a lawyer that there's a potentially large payoff from taking your case against a competitor, you have a better chance. If an independent inventor sees infringement, there's little he can do but if the infringer's pockets get deep enough off your invention, lawyers will come out of the woodwork.

 

The question of patent ownership is another pitfall for inventors.

If the inventor is self employed and owns all the resources (shops, laboratories, personnel, etc.) that were used to conceive and develop the product, then the inventor owns the patent free and clear. However if the inventor uses resources owned by others, there can be a debate over who owns the patent.

In the 1970s, I was one of the co-inventors of the process to protect elevators from damage from an impending earthquake by using a seismometer and an interface with the elevator controller. However, one of the other inventors was also an employee of the University Of California and the prototype of the invention was tested on a group of elevators on the university campus. However the university successfully filed a claim of ownership of the patent because the invention was developed using the university's resources (personnel, buildings, and the elevator equipment on the campus).

The university finally declared that invention was public domain and it could be used free of charge by anyone.