Mathematical algorithms [LWN.net]

Mathematical algorithms

Posted Nov 2, 2009 23:37 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
In reply to: Courgette meets a dangerous (Red) Bend by socket
Parent article: Courgette meets a dangerous (Red) Bend

I think an argument can be made that any invention becomes obvious if you can ask the right question to prompt it and understand the basic prerequisite knowledge.

When I hear this argument about obvious patents I always think about the FFT algorithm, which seems to me the most unintuitive algorithm of all times. But it is after all a mathematical algorithm, and these should not be patentable -- not any more than physical laws.

Today I learned on Wikipedia that the prior art for the FFT goes back to Gauss in 1805. Go figure.

(Log in to post comments)

Mathematical algorithms

Posted Nov 3, 2009 7:31 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

OTOH I think the prior art would still be valid today :D You might as well want to patent the Eratosthenes sieve to find out prime numbers.

Mathematical algorithms

Posted Nov 3, 2009 18:30 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]

No, no, no. Did he discover it _on_a_computer_?! If not, then it's clearly novel!

Mathematical algorithms

Posted Nov 4, 2009 10:00 UTC (Wed) by Kluge (guest, #2881) [Link]

Actually, according to that link, Gauss didn't publish the algorithm (like so much of what he did), so by my understanding of patent law, it doesn't count as prior art.

Mathematical algorithms

Posted Nov 9, 2009 15:48 UTC (Mon) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]

I see your hope and raise you 6,859,816, claim 1 of which appears to read on odd-radix CooleyTukey.

Of course if that is what this patent is actually doing, it is patently invalid without a shred of hope at being enforceable. But it does show that the presence of a clear description of your algorithm in the patent database doesn't mean much without a fair amount of costly analysis.