> i see algorithms as examples of theorems, and the idea to "patent" a theorem, a mathematical truth, is so foreign!
I'm not defending the patenting of algorithms [1], but what is protected by algorithm patents is not their mathematical truth -- quite the opposite, in fact, as I'll explain -- just as what is protected by mechanical patents is not some physical truth.
You are free to publish a patented algorithm (provided you don't copy your text verbatim from a copyrighted source), teach it, study it, etc. to spread that truth and expand it. What you're not allowed to do without permission from the patent owner is to implement it and run it on a computer; i.e. what is protected is not a truth but a certain human action. This is the same for mechanical inventions, which could be equally said to be "physical truths": a mechanism built in this way would, according to the laws of physics, behave in that particular way etc. Similarly, you are allowed to publish and study that physical truth -- what you're not allowed to do is to build it.
Again, I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, only pointing out that it is not truth that's protected by patents, but application. In fact, one of the original motivations for patent protection is precisely to encourage people to not keep doscovered truths secret by promising them that profitable applications would be reserved to them for some period of time. So patents were designed to help spread truth in exchange for protecting applications. That this is what patents are intended to do is a fact.
It's fine to object to patents -- there are good arguments both in favor and against -- but completely misunderstanding what patents are and what it is that they protect is not one of them.
[1]: I'm not in principle against that, either, except that in practice few patented algorithms rise to the level of inventiveness that patents are intended to protect.
And just like with software patents, people come up with weird workarounds:
> Sun-and-planet motion. The spur-gear to the right, called the planet-gear, is tied to the center of the other, or sun-gear, by an arm which preserves a constant distance between their centers. This was used as a substitute for the crank in a steam engine by James Watt, after the use of the crank had been patented by another party. Each revolution of the planet-gear, which is rigidly attached to the connecting-rod, gives two to the sun-gear, which is keyed to the fly-wheel shaft.
> Note that the axle of the planet gear is tied to the axle of the sun gear by a link that freely rotates around the axis of the sun gear and keeps the planet gear engaged with the sun gear but does not contribute to the drive torque. This link appears, at first sight, to be similar to a crank but the drive is not transmitted through it. Thus, it did not contravene the crank patent.
Pretty interesting stuff. Although visually similar it is actually a different principle. And we can readily tell that the arm doesn't contribute to the drive as the sun is rotating faster than the arm would drive it.
But it is not equivalent. The fear was that without patents people won't be able to teach and spread truths because they wouldn't know them. Patents exchange the ability to study and spread truths for protecting their profitable applications. You may be against that compromise because you think it does not achieve its goals or object to such compromises on principle, but it is a very real compromise between very real alternatives -- at least alternatives envisioned by the creators of the patent systems. Denying that alternatives that people have actually been choosing between for centuries [1], and so ignoring the distinction between keeping some truth as a trade secret and making it public but obtaining a time-limited protection on applications -- both are "owning the truth" (if that's what you want to call it) but in different ways -- is completely missing the entire issue, namely which form of ownership is preferable to the other.
One could argue about effectiveness, but it is a common historical intepretation that the choice between different kinds of IP has had a real impact[2], so the distinction is very much one with a difference.
> “It has long been accepted that 'intellectual information', a mathematical algorithm, mere working directions and a scheme without effect are not patentable.”
(Also as a mathematician) Many constructive proofs involve what one could loosely categorize as algorithms. (Not to mention in some computational fields, some proofs can be strictly categorized as algorithms.) Now that I think about it, these can be patented too. Then one can "teach it, study it", but one's not allowed to prove without permission other results using constructions in the same spirit. Geez, thanks for letting people study it, I guess.
Does this imply that the PageRank algorithm I wrote for a uni assignment is actually illegal? Or does this fall under "studying it"? Note that I'm from Europe.
Only if you made/used it commercially and also that Google did not decide you can use it
("What rights does a patent provide?
A patent owner has the right to decide who may – or may
not – use the patented invention for the period in which
the invention is protected. In other words, patent
protection means that the invention cannot be
commercially made, used, distributed, imported, or sold
by others without the patent owner's consent.")
And being out of the country, the US patent doesn't apply to you
("Is a patent valid in every country?
Patents are territorial rights. In general, the
exclusive rights are only applicable in the country or
region in which a patent has been filed and granted, in
accordance with the law of that country or region.")
I'm not defending the patenting of algorithms [1], but what is protected by algorithm patents is not their mathematical truth -- quite the opposite, in fact, as I'll explain -- just as what is protected by mechanical patents is not some physical truth.
You are free to publish a patented algorithm (provided you don't copy your text verbatim from a copyrighted source), teach it, study it, etc. to spread that truth and expand it. What you're not allowed to do without permission from the patent owner is to implement it and run it on a computer; i.e. what is protected is not a truth but a certain human action. This is the same for mechanical inventions, which could be equally said to be "physical truths": a mechanism built in this way would, according to the laws of physics, behave in that particular way etc. Similarly, you are allowed to publish and study that physical truth -- what you're not allowed to do is to build it.
Again, I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, only pointing out that it is not truth that's protected by patents, but application. In fact, one of the original motivations for patent protection is precisely to encourage people to not keep doscovered truths secret by promising them that profitable applications would be reserved to them for some period of time. So patents were designed to help spread truth in exchange for protecting applications. That this is what patents are intended to do is a fact.
It's fine to object to patents -- there are good arguments both in favor and against -- but completely misunderstanding what patents are and what it is that they protect is not one of them.
[1]: I'm not in principle against that, either, except that in practice few patented algorithms rise to the level of inventiveness that patents are intended to protect.