The matrix revisisted

For those in the patent space there has been a bit of fuss lately over the ‘Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International’ case.

It has told us two things – one, that it’s going to be harder to get and/or enforce US software patents that implement activities that were already known prior to implementing them in software, and, two, judges make shit philosophers.

The judges tied themselves up in knots about concepts such as abstract ideas, algorithms, laws of nature and tools of discovery. Behind it though you can sense them protecting the vested interests of the now mature software and internet companies; the power of lobbying. And the beginning of the end of the bubble.

It is actually really easy to figure out if a software patent application is inventive; just ask me. If I have no idea how they did it, then it’s inventive.

What I am trying to say, tongue in cheek, is that inventiveness in software is in the the implementation and not the function. And that is where it should stay.

The very uncomfortable thing about software ‘patent law’ in the US is that there is an implied distinction between the finite and binary nature of code and the supposedly true and infinite analogue universe where true invention exists. There is even a school of thought that algorithms exist before someone first ‘innovates’ them. If they don’t watch out they will end up reducing god to the matrix – I suspect that the American people will have a meltdown when this is all said and done.

The other little wrinkle on the horizon is quantum computing. By adding quantum uncertainty to processors it might be possible to simulate true discovery in code. And discovery might lead to true and unexpected invention.

But the truth is we already have code that does discovery. Learning algorithms for example find results that we struggle to find as humans. Its a process that is innovative by law but outperforms our efforts to invent the same outcome.

Which is to say that we are well on the way to inventing ourselves into an innovative cul-de-sac where we are redundant.