You cannot copyright mathematics and physical theories ????

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Is this true??

 

How then do aspiring scientist, such as aspiring musicians, song writers and etc, get recognized for their work???

 

Yes I look at science as an art form, and I do copyright all of my work regardless, I even have it notarized..

[Cosmobrain]

if the universe is yours, then yes -you can

[Sato]

Well, I think you might be missing the important distinction between pure science and applied science/engineering. If you create some mathematical model that describes the physical world due to some either hard-worked or serendipitous insight you had then that is free for anyone to use, because the physical world is accessible and analyzable by anyone (eg, anyone might be able to themselves derive basic motion equations / Newtonian kinematics, or view and characterize the behavior of some bacterium under a mictoscope); however, if you take such knowledge and understanding of the physical world and apply it to some technique, device, or other invention (eg, an aerodynamic plane wing design created by use of the [free] mathematical models that describe the physical world, or some high resolution microscopy technique created based on one's studies/comprehension of optics and laser physics), then you can patent it as such a configuration was only brought into the world through your own thought, while the mathematical theories/models describe what already exists.

 

Addendum:

To your artist/musician analog: that is valid for the work of an applied scientist / engineer. A composer's work is that of creating music, an (abstract) painter's is that of manifesting a visual abstraction of their mind's creation, and an engineer/applied scientist's is that of articulating a manipulation of the physical world created through their own understanding of it; contrarily, a pure scientist looks at what already exists and describes it in terms understandable. Some of what already exists is extremely complicated and requires either unique or very dedicated minds to understand and describe it, but that job can be up to anyone and is openly available to anyone (wave expensive experimental equipment). Note that those who publish their works in the journals of their respective fields generally do so with their names, and so do get credited as has most often been the case (consider that we know that Einstein developed relativity and Newton did Calculus/lots of optics and mechanics.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Sato

[Strange]

You cannot copyright ideas, only the representation. So there is nothing to stop you writing a story about a young boy living with his uncle and aunt, who then discovers he is a wizard and goes to a special school to learn magic ...

 

Scientists get recognised because their work is published in journals. If their work is sufficiently groundbreaking, they may win various prizes and awards, appear in the media, become famous.

 

But it is claimed that: "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy

Edited June 13, 2014 by Strange

[ajb]

How then do aspiring scientist, such as aspiring musicians, song writers and etc, get recognized for their work???

In general the first to have a published paper, or at least a preprint on the arXiv in recent years, should have priority. But things get missed, especially if they are in obscure journals.

 

Yes I look at science as an art form, and I do copyright all of my work regardless, I even have it notarized..

You can copyright the actual presentation of the work. Journals do this. However, the actual mathematics and science cannot be copyrighted.

 

As Sato says, there are some sort of exceptions here, but these tend to be in relation to products and services. For example you can patent industrial process, computer codes and airplane wings. However the basic science behind these remains public.

[Mordred]

well some computer codes lol, PLC ladder logic work a bit different as each is specific to the machine, in order to copyright the code in this case I would also have to copyright the machine itself. Trust me on this I write PLC code all the time, plus if your working for the company. The company itself has the rights as they paid you to produce it

[ajb]

The company itself has the rights as they paid you to produce it

The point remains that computer code can be copyrighted.

[Strange]

The point remains that computer code can be copyrighted.

 

In some countries but not others.

[ajb]

In some countries but not others.

This must be the same with all patents and copyrights, not all countries respect the laws of other countries.

[Strange]

This must be the same with all patents and copyrights, not all countries respect the laws of other countries.

 

True. But the general principles are the same in most countries (especially with copyright where it is largely defined by the Berne Convention). But software is one of the major points of difference between patent laws in different jurisdictions.

[ajb]

Thanks for that, I'll take care of my codes! (not that I have written much)

[Acme]

...

You can copyright the actual presentation of the work. Journals do this. ...

As Sato says, there are some sort of exceptions here, but these tend to be in relation to products and services. For example you can patent industrial process, computer codes and airplane wings. However the basic science behind these remains public.

 

 

In most cases the journals take the copyright and the author gets limited rights. A copyright is only as good as your ability to enforce it.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

In general the first to have a published paper, or at least a preprint on the arXiv in recent years, should have priority. But things get missed, especially if they are in obscure journals.

 

 

You can copyright the actual presentation of the work. Journals do this. However, the actual mathematics and science cannot be copyrighted.

 

As Sato says, there are some sort of exceptions here, but these tend to be in relation to products and services. For example you can patent industrial process, computer codes and airplane wings. However the basic science behind these remains public.

Ohhhhhhhh, I see now, it is an issue of " products and services" now replies makes clearer sense to me" especially about the patent, the paper article, and public profile for the idea and statement so the world will know your theory is yours...

 

 

Deep inside however I see, that no matter how one goes about it, their will always be ideas taken and may even be patented under those whom provide this " products and services" without you ever knowing it, hey its a real world.

 

I think I choose the news paper article and public announcement so the world can see it was really you that had the original idea...

 

Now hopeful those providers of " products and services" don't block the news to claim whats yours to be theirs...

 

...

You can copyright the actual presentation of the work. Journals do this. ...

 

As Sato says, there are some sort of exceptions here, but these tend to be in relation to products and services. For example you can patent industrial process, computer codes and airplane wings. However the basic science behind these remains public.

 

In most cases the journals take the copyright and the author gets limited rights. A copyright is only as good as your ability to enforce it.

 

100% true, products and services makes sense....

You cannot copyright ideas, only the representation. So there is nothing to stop you writing a story about a young boy living with his uncle and aunt, who then discovers he is a wizard and goes to a special school to learn magic ...

 

Scientists get recognised because their work is published in journals. If their work is sufficiently groundbreaking, they may win various prizes and awards, appear in the media, become famous.

 

But it is claimed that: "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy

representation "confirmed" hymm,,, math that represents something mechanical, to get patented?

this is how I am seeing it...

Well, I think you might be missing the important distinction between pure science and applied science/engineering. If you create some mathematical model that describes the physical world due to some either hard-worked or serendipitous insight you had then that is free for anyone to use, because the physical world is accessible and analyzable by anyone (eg, anyone might be able to themselves derive basic motion equations / Newtonian kinematics, or view and characterize the behavior of some bacterium under a mictoscope); however, if you take such knowledge and understanding of the physical world and apply it to some technique, device, or other invention (eg, an aerodynamic plane wing design created by use of the [free] mathematical models that describe the physical world, or some high resolution microscopy technique created based on one's studies/comprehension of optics and laser physics), then you can patent it as such a configuration was only brought into the world through your own thought, while the mathematical theories/models describe what already exists.

 

Addendum:

To your artist/musician analog: that is valid for the work of an applied scientist / engineer. A composer's work is that of creating music, an (abstract) painter's is that of manifesting a visual abstraction of their mind's creation, and an engineer/applied scientist's is that of articulating a manipulation of the physical world created through their own understanding of it; contrarily, a pure scientist looks at what already exists and describes it in terms understandable. Some of what already exists is extremely complicated and requires either unique or very dedicated minds to understand and describe it, but that job can be up to anyone and is openly available to anyone (wave expensive experimental equipment). Note that those who publish their works in the journals of their respective fields generally do so with their names, and so do get credited as has most often been the case (consider that we know that Einstein developed relativity and Newton did Calculus/lots of optics and mechanics.

How about if the math describes "light" in no relation to matter, would the math then be considered a non physical description that we all share applicable to copyright??

 

It should be I think, really if math described this, I think it would be applicable, it would just need some convincing though..

Edited June 15, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Strange]

representation "confirmed" hymm,,, math that represents something mechanical, to get patented?

this is how I am seeing it...

How about if the math describes "light" in no relation to matter, would the math then be considered a non physical description that we all share applicable to copyright??.

 

You cannot get a patent on mathematics, only on a mechanism that uses it. I'm not sure about the status of copyright and mathematics. I think it would have to be a substantial mathematical proof or derivation before you could claim copyright on it.

[ajb]

I think it would have to be a substantial mathematical proof or derivation before you could claim copyright on it.

I have never come across any intellectual copyright like that. Generally mathematicians want to share their ideas, of course in reality very few people read mathematics papers, but for sure no practicing mathematician would want to put any restrictions on new ideas in mathematics. Any restrictions would just act to slow down progress and stifle the subject.

 

Copyright is usually sort if there is any financial or commercial value of something, mathematical papers are not usually worth anything in that sense. It is only the journals that copyright the presentation of the mathematics for their commercial gain, mathematicians make no money directly from papers.

 

Books maybe a little different, but in reality mathematicians make very little money from monographs and advanced textbooks. Often the publisher will hand the copyright back to the authors and they make versions of the book freely available on their websites or the arXiv.

 

Elementary textbooks maybe an exception to this and these can being financial gain to the authors. But again, it is the presentation that is copyrighted not the actual mathematics.

[timo]

A few comments of mine: First of all, copyrighting and patenting are probably not the same thing. Copyrighting refers to having the rights to multiply a particular piece of work. Patenting is the exclusive right to commercially exploit an invention for a certain amount of time. Neither has to do with "giving credit" or "getting recognition" but instead see the world from a purely economical point of view (as most laws do). In fact, more often than not the inventor/creator/artist/scientist is actually not the copyright holder (music, movies, software, scientific publications, ...). What the OP mean is closer to patents, but not quite, though. Microsoft, Apple, ... don't hold thousands of patents because they want recognition for their ideas. They want to keep others out of their business. If the OP find the grand unified theory of the universe and conceives a kick-ass device employing an aspect of that theory then while the theory cannot be patented/copyrighted in itself, the kick-ass device can be patented (possibly after presenting a working prototype ...).

 

The point remains that computer code can be copyrighted.

Interestingly, the copyright situation with software seems to be comparable to that of scientific publications. Me and the people on my project recently discussed that with a lawyer with regard to a piece of software we develop in the project. According to the lawyer, ideas and the design/architecture of the software cannot be copyrighted. Only the particular implementation of it can. From the perspective of the creators that is a bit disappointing, of course: just as doing the research is more work than writing the paper about the results there is more intellectual work in the architecture of a software than in the implementation of the architecture. But from a "whole picture" perspective I believe that no one should have legal rights on ideas (I am a rather strong opponent of patents, btw).

[Greg H.]

For a list of FAQs about US Copyright law, as well as links to publications and circulars about it, http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

[drgjs]

No you cannot protect mathematical models or physics equations.

Computer code is automatically protected by copyright, but someone else can write a similar code from scratch for themselves without asking permission to use your equations.

If you want computer code to be protected then keep the source code secret - which means never ever letting near a networked computer.

As Timo says, patenting and copyright are completely different animals.

You can only patent an idea which is not in the public domain. I'm afraid if you have told someone about your idea without first entering a confidentiality agreement with that person, that can count as public domain.

What you have to bear in mind is that even if you patent something

(i) the patent - and hence the idea - is in then available for people to look at publicly. By protecting ideas by patents you also expose them.

(ii) the patent DOES NOT mean people can't copy your idea - it means you have legal means to try and stop them. The cost of patenting is not in the patent but in the cost of pursuing the patent breakers.

 

James Dyson, the inventor of the Dyson vacuum cleaner, nearly went bankrupt when he first started protecting the idea around the world.

[MirceaKitsune]

Thank goodness, this is one of the things that can't be copyrighted / patented in today's world. At least physics can't be put in anyone's pocket, unlike innovation with certain patent trolls for instance.

 

That said, I agree with mathematicians and scientists being credited for their discoveries... that's more than fair to do! But history takes care of this thankfully. Actual copyright would only mean evil restrictions.

Edited June 22, 2014 by MirceaKitsune

[ajb]

But history takes care of this thankfully.

But often history does not give credit to the right person!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

But often history does not give credit to the right person!

Stigler's law of eponymy, discovered by Robert Merton, is a result of this.

[MirceaKitsune]

That's sad. From what I heard, most scientists who made great discoveries were credited for what they did... but I guess there would be exceptions too.

 

Anyway, what I think I'd like to see isn't copyright for maths and physics... but rather a Creative-Commons like license. Copyright means crediting the author, but also restricting usage of these theories. If someting like CC-BY-SA could be applied to such formulas, scientists would get the credit they rightfully deserve, while there wouldn't be the risk of science going in anyone's pocket and holding progress back.

[Acme]

...Anyway, what I think I'd like to see isn't copyright for maths and physics... but rather a Creative-Commons like license. Copyright means crediting the author, but also restricting usage of these theories. If someting like CC-BY-SA could be applied to such formulas, scientists would get the credit they rightfully deserve, while there wouldn't be the risk of science going in anyone's pocket and holding progress back.

That sounds reasonable if journals would adopt it too and stop charging people to read works by authors that they [the journals] claim the copyright to. I side with the opinion of Grigory Perelman when he said, "To put it short, the main reason [i declined the $1 million prize] is my disagreement with the organized mathematical community. I dont like their decisions, I consider them unjust.