[OT] Free software versus software idea patents

[geremy condra]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:35 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777 at charter.net> wrote:

>    I am sorry, I was not clear and you rightly misunderstood my indirection.
> I am not claiming that software describes hardware. Please allow me to
> restate.
>    Mathematics describes hardware, yet hardware is patentable and
> mathematics is not. The hardware is patentable, but the mathematics used in
> the hardware production is not. ( I think we are in agreement so far).
> Again, patent the chip, but not the symbol.

I think you're still ascribing slightly too much power to mathematics
here, but I don't think its relevant to the main point you're making.

>    All software (and yes, I mean all of it) is nothing more nor less than
> mathematics... relationship over symbol--- but not limited to algorithms,
> and certainly not limited to computation.

Restatement is not a form of proof. If you're right, prove it to me-
I've stated my initial objections.

> Software is not *just* described
> by mathematics (as hardware is) software is itself mathematics--- the
> description. (not the description of hardware, the living and breathing
> description of relationship over symbol).  Software is mathematics, and it
> is therefore not patentable. Please don't confuse hardware with this... I
> never meant to go there--- my fault.   The mathematics of software is no
> more physical than the mathematics of (chalk on a blackboard) is physical.
> The chalk dust and board are not the issue; neither are the circuits and
> switches. Relationship over symbol is the issue; and algorithms and
> computation are the very least of it, if at all. Think "thought" and
> "process".

This is just repetition. Besides being a marginally effective attempt
to bedazzle with eloquence, it again contributes nothing to your
argument.

>    When I am speaking of mathematics I am NOT even speaking about
> computation, nor am I speaking about *just* algorithms; although,
> mathematical 'process' is certainly at the heart of the discussion.

>    Richard Feynman has said, "Nature talks to us in the language of
> mathematics," and it behooves all educated people to grapple with the
> understanding of this powerful aphorism. When authors of software are
> composing software, they are "doing" mathematics. The craft is ever present.
> Some, like myself more theoretical and philosophical, others more practical
> and applied. Yet both kinds of person are doing mathematics (generating
> mathematics) with every manipulated symbol. The beautiful symbols of
> software development are the very symbols of harmonious mathematical
> relationship from every pure functional construct (or even OOP Class) right
> down to each and every 1 & 0 (on and off). This artistry is pure and applied
> science (the stuff of every human thought in logic and reasoning).Jan
> Gullberg has said, "Mathematics grows and develops in many ways unrelated to
> science, and thus plays a crucial role in the history of human thought".
> This is the art and science of software engineering of which I am speaking.
> Software is the very stuff of human thought and expression. In so many ways
> software reflects the very nature of what it means to be human; how we
> reflect, organize, structure, and relate cognitively over symbol. I love
> mathematics, as I love software, and I have abused neither.

Again, repetition. You've found the fire and wonder but lost the
precision in the process, and that *is* an abuse of mathematics. Give
it precision and you'll do just fine.

>    If you agree with my politics (with broad strokes) why would you not like
> to try to understand what my politics are based in? Are you apposed to
> software patents out of frustration and emotion only? Or, is there another
> in-born reason why you detest them? I suspect that the mathematician in you
> is screaming to be let out...

It's been let out. I'm a security researcher and a cryptanalyst, and I
have colleagues who do the same work I do who identify themselves as
mathematicians. My opposition to software patents is based in the
firmly held belief that they're a way for entrenched players to kick
the crap out of real innovators. I believe that to be profoundly
unfair, and I don't have a great love of bullies.

Having said that, I have a greater respect for mathematics than I do
for my own economic views, and I don't like seeing it become a
political football. If you can prove something, *prove it*. If you
cannot- no matter how close you might feel you are- don't claim that
math says you're right. In this case you've let yourself get carried
away with some very deep, very complex math that you don't fully
understand and used it to justify a view that almost is almost
certainly held for other reasons. You've reduced some of the most
elegant and powerful works of the human mind to simple confirmation
bias, and I think most mathematicians would find that shameful.

Geremy Condra