Knuth Would Rule Out Software Patents
Almost everyone who has completed university training in computer science knows who Professor Donald Knuth is. When I was completing my undergraduate computer science degree, I remember referring to his textbook many times. As they were quite expensive for me, I could not afford to buy them and so would review them in the university's library.
He has apparently written to both the USPTO (in 1994) and the EPO (more recently) explaining why he thinks software should not be patentable. However, his letter to the EPO reflects a misunderstanding many people have about what is patentable and what is not. His letter provides an example in support of his argument:
"For example, it would be terrible if somebody were to have a patent on an integer, like say 1009, so that nobody would be able to use that number "with further technical effect" without paying for a license."
Professor Knuth is arguing that something (software) should not be patentable by comparing it to something else (a number) that was never patentable. To my knowledge, no patent office in the world has or would ever award a patent on a number or other fundamental "truths of nature." Patent laws are designed to award innovation, and an innovative algorithm that is novel and not obvious should be awarded a patent no differently than a machine. To say that an algorithm can be explained mathematically and should not be patent eligible is equivalent to saying that a machine merely employs laws of physics and should not be patent eligible.
Just as Professor Knuth was rewarded for writing his excellent textbooks, innovators in all new fields of human endeavor should expect that their innovations will be fruitful. When drafting Article I of the Constitution of the United States, the founding fathers recognized that having a world full of copycats would not lead to progress.
