Dissecting the Software Patent Problem an argument against patentability based on the

400 Pages·2012·2.37 MB·English

by  Hughes, Anton Robert

Dissecting the Software Patent Problem
AnArgumentAgainstPatentabilitybasedonthe
RelationshipbetweenSoftwareandMathematics
AntonRobertHughes
BE(CSE),LLB(Hons),GradDipLegalPrac,GradCertCommercialisation
Submittedinfulfilmentoftherequirementsfor
theDegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy
May2012
UniversityofTasmania

Declaration of Originality
ThisthesiscontainsnomaterialwhichhasbeenacceptedforadegreeordiplomabytheUniver-
sityoranyotherinstitution,exceptbywayofbackgroundinformationanddulyacknowledged
inthethesis,andtothebestofmyknowledgeandbeliefnomaterialpreviouslypublishedor
writtenbyanotherpersonexceptwheredueacknowledgmentismadeinthetextofthethesis,
nordoesthethesiscontainanymaterialwhichinfringescopyright.
Authority of Access
Thisthesismaybemadeavailableforloanandlimitedcopyingandcommunicationinaccor-
dancewiththeCopyrightAct1968.
Statement of Ethical Conduct
The research associated with this thesis abides by the international and Australian codes on
humanandanimalexperimentation,theguidelinesbytheAustralianGovernment’sOfficeof
theGeneTechnologyRegulatorandtherulingsoftheSafety,EthicsandInstitutionalBiosafety
CommitteesoftheUniversity.
AntonRobertHughes Date

ForBob

Abstract
Shouldsoftwarebepatentable? DespiteaUSPresidentialCommissionansweringinthenega-
tivein1968,andalegislativeexclusionoperatingintheUKsince1977,thepatentingofsoftware
has become a regular occurrence in the US, the UK and Australia. But even now software’s
patentability is not settled, as evidenced by the widespread protests against the EU Software
Directive in 2005, and the level of anticipation of the US Supreme Court decision in Bilski v
Kappos in 2010. The reason for this continuing unrest is that the patenting of software pro-
vides a number of practical problems for the software industry and theoretical challenges to
thecoherenceofthepatentregime.
Inallofthis,software’srelationshipwithmathematicshasbeenoverlooked. Softwareisboth
a product of and isomorphic to mathematics. This makes for an interesting avenue of in-
quiry, both because of mathematics’ long history, and courts’ acceptance of it as inherently
non-patentable. This thesis explores historical and philosophical accounts of mathematics in
pursuitofabetterunderstandingofitsnature. Thataccountdemonstrateswhymanytheories
as to mathematics’ non-patentability are largely unsatisfactory. However, by refocusing the
debate on the conditions necessary for mathematical advancement, a three-dimensional ana-
lytical framework emerges, centred around the concept of the useful arts. This analysis both
explainsmathematics’non-patentability, andoffersatheoryofpatentablesubjectmattercon-
sistentwithAustralian,AmericanandEuropeanpatentlaw. Theanalysisisthenappliedtothe
field of software to explain why software falls so close to the boundary, but ultimately ought
notbeconsideredpatentablesubjectmatter.
i

Contents
Abstract i
Contents iii
Acknowledgments ix
Introduction 1
1 Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Othermatters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1 TheNatureofSoftware 11
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Whatissoftware? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
TheEvolutionofModernSoftware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
MachineCode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
AssemblyLanguage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Highlevellanguages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Compilers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Interpreters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Firmware,kernelsandoperatingsystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Libraries,frameworksandpatterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Scriptinglanguagesanddomain-specificlanguages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Themodernsoftwaredevelopmentprocess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Mainpurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Systemarchitecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Abstractdatatypes(ADTs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
AlgorithmsandDataStructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Sourcecode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Objectcode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
iii
Contents
Puttingitalltogether . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3 Anexample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4 Howissoftwarerelatedtomathematics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Formalequivalence: theTuringmachine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
ArecomputersandtheTuringmachineequivalent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
CriticismsoftheChurch-Turingthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Structuralsimilaritiesbetweenmathematicsandsoftware . . . . . . . . . 33
5 Implicationsoftheisomorphismforpatentlaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2 TheHistoryofPatentableSubjectMatter 37
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Whatisapatent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Whatisamannerofmanufacture? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2 Earlyhistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3 Post-1623developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
BoultonvBull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
AfterBoultonvBull. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Patentsasasocialcontract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
TowardsanAmericanPatentSystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Analogoususes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
EarlyUScaselaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
AnAustralianpatentcustom? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4 ThemodernpatentsystememergesintheUK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5 Theearly20thCentury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
UnitedKingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Non-patentabilityofprinciplesrevisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Commerceandtrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Morton’srules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
UnitedStates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6 TheNRDCcase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Analogoususes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Inventiveness;discoveryvinvention;knowledgevapplication . . . . . . . . . . 63
Scopeofpatentablesubjectmatter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Applicationtothepresentcase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3 HowSoftwareBecamePatentable 73
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
iv