Of course there are grey areas, and it's appropriate that they're decided by the courts. I'm sure nobody would argue that a lossy copy of a work protected by copyright can still infringe, even if the lossiness was deliberate and intended to differentiate it from the original to a minimal degree.
Copyright of literary characters is one of the harder ones to define, and perhaps a system more like patents would be more appropriate for them, but that's neither here nor there.
Let's stick to computer science for a while. Imagine I have come up with a sorting algorithm for integers with significantly better time complexity than existing options. I can describe that in any number of programming languages, in natural language, in pictographs, etc. It's a skill that people can learn, or a tool that could be embedded in silicon and used for financial gain. Doesn't that sound more like an invention than a creative work? Shouldn't patents be the best fit?
Don't get me wrong, copyright and patent systems the world over hace significant class, but for us as software engineers to declare that patents shouldn't apply to our work because it is somehow fundamentally different to the other science and engineering disciplines is just arrogance.
The problem is that algorithms and math are explicitly forbidden from being patented. This is why most software patents include some sort of clause specifying that the work is done using a computer.
The patent office has simply done a lousy job when it comes to software patents.
I hadn't heard it explained this way before, but it explains so much.
So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding?
That's not how it works in Europe; just saying "done on a computer" is explicitly not enough. There's a concept called "technical effect" that's been worked over in the courts and well developed in the last decade (I'll leave you to look it up, eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_E...).
I'm a bit out of the loop but whilst USA started letting pretty much anything in there seem to have tightened up over the years.
There's a parallel with business methods too. In both cases there been a move towards a middleground - harmonisation. Personally I feel the USA position is far worse and this harmonisation is not good; liberalisation of soft-pat and business method patents on Europe would be a big loss IMO.
>So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding?
That was how the law was until recently. But the supreme court found that "just do it on a computer" no longer counts.
I don't believe you are correct. You can't patent math, but you can patent algorithms. This is analogous to the material world, where you can't patent physics, but you can patent engineering.
An algorithm isn't math, it's a series of instructions. That is something that is patentable, as long as it involves an inventive step.
A more efficient sorting algorithm that is non-obvious would almost certainly be patentable.
You're partially correct. Algorithms can't be patented. However, in practice, patent drafters work around this by adding phrases such as "A memory with computer readable instructions to [Insert Algorithm]" to turn the algorithm into an invented product. The bottom line is that the invention is the memory and the processor system whose novelty is that it includes instructions which implement the particular steps of the algorithm. This practically covers all implementations of the algorithm on Von Neumann machines, in effect covering all current implementations of the algorithm.
Anything you can do in software I can do with a set of hydraulic value). Your software will be faster (a video game on my valves will take several lifetimes to display the opening), but it will work (until something leaks). thus you can translate your program to hydraulics and it is patentable.
The first sentence on the Wikipedia page of algorithm:
"In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm is a self-contained sequence of actions to be performed. Algorithms can perform calculation, data processing and automated reasoning tasks. "
An algorithm is a mathematical construct that happens to be useful with computers. See the first volume of The Art of Computer Programming for a nice formal definition of algorithm.
As a holder of dozens of patents, many of them on processes derived from algorithms, I fully understand (as well as anyone can) the implications of current case law. In order to patent an algorithm, you have to re-cast it as an operation to be performed on a general purpose computer. As long as you do that, you have the patent. I fully agree that there's nothing to stop you from calculating GIF's with pencil and paper, or on an abacus, or in your head -- is that a relevant distinction, or merely an academic one?
Additionally, the algorithm has to be non-trivial, which I take to mean multi-step, for it to be patentable when it's transformed into an operation performed on a general-purpose computer. Simply multiplying by a constant, even when done on a general purpose computer, is not patentable.
Copyright of literary characters is one of the harder ones to define, and perhaps a system more like patents would be more appropriate for them, but that's neither here nor there.
Let's stick to computer science for a while. Imagine I have come up with a sorting algorithm for integers with significantly better time complexity than existing options. I can describe that in any number of programming languages, in natural language, in pictographs, etc. It's a skill that people can learn, or a tool that could be embedded in silicon and used for financial gain. Doesn't that sound more like an invention than a creative work? Shouldn't patents be the best fit?
Don't get me wrong, copyright and patent systems the world over hace significant class, but for us as software engineers to declare that patents shouldn't apply to our work because it is somehow fundamentally different to the other science and engineering disciplines is just arrogance.