Information: Software patents under the magnifying glass
Table of contents
 1 Divide and Conquer
 2 Mathematical Basics
 3 Turing Machines and Calculus
 4 Proof of Software
 5 Analyses
 5.1 Analysis of Statement a)
 5.2 Analysis of Statement b)
 5.3 Analysis of Statement c)
 5.4 Analysis of Statement d)
 6 Conclusion
 7 Literature
In the 19th century the emergence of the patenting (german Patents Act of 1877)
was inevitable based on the scientific possibilities and knowledge at that time.
An epistemological paradigm was that one can divide the knowledge of the world
into independent categories, e.g. mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology,
sociology, astronomy etc. and that in these fields of knowledge or sciences
there should be further and finer independent partitioning.
This is called the approach of Divide and Conquer.
Many years later one had to state that this approach did not work as one had
imagined first.
From a mathematical point of view the assumption of categories,
a grouping of elements into disjoint sets (tree structure), was wrong.
Today the modern aspects starts out from overlapping sets (network architecture).
In particular our scientific understanding of the world had experienced a
very fundamental change by the quantum theory (19251928), which represents
in its core nonlocal theory.
This insight is known as "everything is connected with everything" and has
led to new interdisciplinary fields of research:
biochemistry, bio computer science, economical informatics, physical chemistry,
applied mathematics etc.
Despite of all scientific knowledge of the last 125 years, today the
patenting is still based implicitly on the outdated categorical approach:
a) All ideas are well distinguished against each other and they are infinite.
In the illustration on the right side this is to be symbolized by coloured circles.
Free ideas are represented "blue" and patented are "red".
Ideas, which are based on other ideas and/or contain other ideas, are called
derived ideas (see item c).


b) To any given idea there exists an immense number of realizations.
Realizations of different ideas are different from each other as well.
In the illustration on the right side the white circles located below the ideas
represent their concrete realizations.
A red box stands for a patented idea.
It's like a fence around a property.
Commonly used soil does not exist.
Therefore each patent has its own area of application.


c) A patent covers also the derivative of an idea and/or the derivative
of the realization of an idea.
One level under the concrete realizations, attainable over arrows, derived
realizations are drawn.
If e.g. idea 1 were the "wheel", then x could stand for barrows.
If e.g. idea 2 were a "brake", then z could stand for a push pull cable with brake.
The case of a patent infringement is represented by y, if e.g. y were a bicycle
with brake.
The patentee argues that the person who builds y plagiarized that.
This shows that the requirement range of the patent is extendable at will, if
the derivative contains the patented idea.


d) There are still enough free ideas and realizations of ideas so that the
set of all patented ideas does not disturb strongly.

Now we adapt the above statements from the patenting, so that they fit
into the range of the software.
For this we equate idea with function (and/or mapping) and the realization of
an idea with a program (and/or algorithm):
a) All functions are well distinguished against each other and they are infinite.
b) To any given function there exists an immense number of realizations (programs).
Programs of different functions are different from each other as well.
c) A patent covers also the derivative of a function and/or the derivative of the program of a function.
d) There are still enough free functions and programs of functions so that the set of all patented functions does not disturb strongly.
We regard these statements intuitively as correct due to our everydays life experiences
and apparently it seems that closer proofs, which prove the correctness clearly,
are not necessary.
Now we would like to develop the appropriate proofs gradually in this text.
It will turn out that the statements, mentioned above are inadequate and contradictory.
In mathematics one derives relations from the set theory.
If it depends on the order of two elements x_{1}, x_{2}, then
the term of the ordered pair or 2tuple ( x_{1}, x_{2} ) is used.
A settheoretical definition of the ordered pair would be the following:
Definition (1)
( x_{1} , x_{2} ) { x_{1} , x_{2} }
because of { x_{1} , x_{2} } = { x_{2} , x_{1} }
but:
( x_{1} , x_{2} ) := { { x_{1} } , { x_{1} , x_{2} } }
Another possibility to form 2tuples consists of using numbers
for the structuring of numbers (Goedel numbers).
With ordered pairs the cartesian product can be defined.
On the one hand it serves for the construction of new mathematical things and
on the other hand it helps to firmly establish the definition of relations.
Definition (2)
M_{1}
... M_{n} :=
{ ( x_{1} , ... , x_{n} )  x_{i}
M_{i} } is called
cartesian product of the sets M_{1} , ... , M_{n}.
The set M_{1}
M_{2} := { ( x_{1} , x_{2} )  x_{1}
M_{1}
x_{2} M_{2} }
is called set of pairs.
Definition (3)
Each subset R
M_{1}
... M_{n}
is called nary relation.
Relations usually do no build a clear relationship between sets, i.e.
an element can have several elements be assigned.
If unambiguity is needed, one uses the term mapping and/or function.
Definition (4)
A lefttotal, rightdefinite relation f
M N is called mapping (or function).
A function can be understood as a set of 2tuples, whereby each tuple obtains
an unambiguous allocation.
With the definitions, mentioned above we have an abstract description of the objects we
will discuss in this text: functions.
In the years 19361941 the Calculus has been
developed by Alonzo Church [CHU36, CHU41]
to formalize the term function.
It is an abstract model of calculability, based exclusive on function definition and
application of functions.
Later one recognized that the Calculus is an efficient
means for the description of programming languages.
In 1960 it served McCarthy as basis for the development of the programming language LISP.
Already in 1937 Alan Turing [TUR37] proved that the
Calculus and the turing machine are alternative
descriptions of the same thing: our understanding of what is calculable.
Nowadays turing machines are pervasive, because each existing computer and/or
PC is a Turing machine.
It follows a definition, what has to be understood by a calculus:
Definition (5)
 An alphabet is a set of symbols.
 The set of all possible words over the alphabet A should be
described by A^{*}.
 A language K over an alphabet A is a subset of all
possible words over the alphabet, thus:
K A^{*}.
 A calculus is a language with a set of transformation rules, which are
defined on the set of the words of the language.
On the basis of (5) the following definition of the
calculus becomes understandable:
Definition (6)
It is V a countable set of variables.
The language L of the terms is inductively
defined over the alphabet V
{ (, ), } as follows:
x V x L
M , N L
( M N ) L
Application
x V
M L
( x M ) L
Abstraction
An exacter explanation is not of a greater use in this context.
The interested reader can find it in the various literature to the Calculus.
Nevertheless the sufficient knowledge of the Calculus is
however presupposed for the further reading and understanding of this text.
Note
We will refer to a contradiction of the patent law, in case software becomes patentable.
In the patent law one expressly excluded mathematical formulas from patenting.
As we saw above, programming does not differ to mathematics, if one uses the
Calculus or something similar and programs are
mathematical formulas.
This works very well in practice as it is shown by several functional programming
languages such as LISP, ML, Miranda, Haskell, Scheme, Clean etc.
Proofs of programs' characteristics is a difficult venture, since there are many
problem definitions in computer science, which are proven to be unsolvable.
The most wellknown problem is certainly the halting problem (Halteproblem).
The halting problem concerns the question whether there is a program that is able
to decide whether an other programm will stop (or terminate).
This question is unsolvable.
Such a program does not exist.
However it still has come worse: In 1953 Rice [ RIC53] proved
that practically all interesting statements about programs are generally not
decidable (see also [RIC56 ] or alternatively [HOP79]).
Sentence of Rice
"Each not trivial semantic characteristic of algorithms is not decidable."
In this connection one calls a characteristic trivial, if either every or no
computed function possesses it.
Thus are not decidable for example,
 whether the computed function is totally, everywhere undefined, injective,
surjective or bijective etc.,
 whether two given algorithms compute the same function,
 whether a given algorithm is correct to a given function, which means, it
will never exist a program for the general verification of software.
It is a little bit discouraging, if one reads the sentence of Rice, but on the
other side one can gain somewhat positive from the fact.
If a proof is possible, then one proves always a trivial characteristic of algorithms,
which is valid for all.
Naturally the sentence of Rice limits the possibilities.
In addition, it gives tips how to design a proof and/or where one should search.
a) All functions are well distinguished against each other and they are infinite.
To get the statement more precisely, we prove that there are more than countably
infinite functions and that only countably infinite of them are calculable.
Definition (7)
A function is calculable, if an abstract machine exists, which computes (implements)
the function.
If we want to examine whether there are functions, which cannot be computed by
algorithms, then the following general characteristic of algorithms helps us:
Each algorithm can be described by a finite text over a firm, finite alphabet.
If A is an alphabet A = { a_{1} , ... , a_{n} } with
an alphabetical order a_{1} < a_{2} < ...
< a_{n}, then it is well known that A^{*} is the set of
all texts and/or words over A:
A^{*} = { ,
a_{1} , ... , a_{n} , a_{1}a_{1} ,
a_{1}a_{2} , ... ,
a_{4}a_{1}a_{6}a_{2}a_{1} , ... }
The character stands for the word with the length 0.
Now the set of A^{*} can be ordered first by the length of the words,
i.e. to each length m there are n^{m} different words over A
(thus finite); then within the words of the same length we sort lexicographical:
b_{1}b_{2} ... b_{m} <
c_{1}c_{2} ... c_{m} applies for b_{1} <
c_{1} (b_{1} = c_{1}
b_{2} < c_{2})
... (b_{1} = c_{1}
... b_{m1} = c_{m1}
b_{m} < c_{m}).
Thus we determined an order on A^{*} and hence we can state:
A^{*} is countable.
Since there are no more calculable functions as calculating algorithms and no more
algorithms than texts describing them, it obviously applies:
The set of the calculable functions is countable.
However there are far more functions.
We regard all functions f defined on the set of the natural numbers,
which supply the values 0 or 1 as results only;
every function defines a subset M_{f}
of those numbers m
, for which f(m) = 1.
The other way around there is a function f_{M} which is called the characteristic function
of the set M for each subset M .
The set of all subsets of M
is known to be uncountably infinite, just as the set of their characteristic functions;
and therefore the set of all functions too.
The consequence of that is, that not calculable functions exist.
On these results one can say that there are more functions, than one can compute, but
the statement under a) is nevertheless true.
b) To any given function there exists an immense number of realizations (programs). Programs of different functions are different from each other as well.
We know that functions can be computed by programs.
If it concerns a concrete function f, then one can write it as mapping
f: A B, i.e. f maps the set of the
input values A on the set of the output values B.
Functions can be understood as set of 2tuples.
The simplest functions, which we can imagine would be those, which contain only one 2tuple.
More complicated functions can be constructed, by simply adding further 2tuples.
There are countless possibilities to compute the tuple allocation in order to
avoid to enumerate all tuples explicitly.
Examples
f(x) = { 1234 for x=1
g(x) = { 1234 for x=1 and 48 for x=2 and 543 for x=3
h(x) = { 1234 for x=1 and 0 otherwise
k(x) = x ^{2}  2x + 1
Now we regard three special functions f_{1}, f_{2}
and f_{3}:
f_{1}(x) = { 0 for x=0 and 1 for x=1
f_{2}(x) = x
f_{3}(x) = x^{2}
f_{1} consists of two 2tuples, that means, the definition range and
the range of values are defined for only 2 values.
In contrast to it f_{2} and f_{3} are defined completely
over .
If we now specify the fact that our calculations with all three functions will
only use two points (0 and 1) in the definition range, we see that all three
computations supply the same values.
Note: Programmers use type declarations to restrict the definition range and
the range of values.
Therefore one can say that x and x^{2} represent likewise equivalent algorithms
for the computation of f_{1} and one can say that f_{2}
and f_{3} are derivatives of f_{1}, because they contain f_{1}
completely.
The opposite does not apply.
This characteristic of functions is not coincidental.
It is, because of the fact that relations were defined as subset.
See definition (3).
While programming a computer one is still more restricted.
Thus e.g. f_{3}(x) = x^{2} cannot be really computed at all.
Because of limited memory and computing speed programs usually calculate only
approximations of functions, i.e. one computes only one subset of the actual function.
However, strictly spoken a reduced definition range or range of values
represents another function.
We have shown that a program can quite compute the correct mapping for several functions.
In fact, programs must do so compellingly, otherwise they could not supply results at all.
This is in contrast to the statement b) that programs belong only to one function,
which was a condition in the categorical approach.
Thus we have proved that statement b) is wrong.
Note
One compares ambiguity and resource restrictions of the computation of a function
by programs with the consequence, according to the sentence of Rice, that it is not
decidable whether two given algorithms compute the same function.
c) A patent covers also the derivative of a function and/or the derivative of the program of a function.
According to statement c) all functions infringe a patented function, if they are a
derivative of the patented function.
In the previous section we have already got to know a kind of derivative, which
was based on the fact that a derived function contains exactly the 2tuples of the
patented function.
Additionally there are functions, which possess no or only very few common tuples outward,
but they are completely contained in another function, in order to realize a computation.
So they are derivatives too.
Now we would like to exactly examine the presence of a function in another function.
In order to illustrate, let us have a look at these representations of relations as matrices.
Let there always be a function f: A B
and it applies: a_{0} , a_{1} , ... , a_{N}
A und b_{0} , b_{1} ,
... , b_{M} B.
Further N and M designate the cardinality of the sets, thus N = card(A)
and M = card(B).
We can easily see that there are only three cases.
Since we are limited to functions, thus rightdefinite relations, case 3) is void and is shown
only for the sake of completeness.
Each cross stands for a tuple.
As a characteristic we can determine the number of crosses per line and/or per column.

case 1) 

case 2) 

case 3) 
line sum 
1 

1 

2,...,M 
column sum 
2,...,N 

1 

1 
Since the matrices represent only really existing tuples (please ignore the inaccuracy in
the variable "..." range of the illustrations) each line or column must always be occupied
with at least one cross.
In the case 2), i.e. N = M, all sums are equal to 1.
Each input value is mapped on another output value.
We can say that the mapping is biunique in this case, thus
b_{i} = f a_{i} und
a_{i} = f^{1} b_{i}.
In the case 1), i.e. N > M, there are column sums, which are greater than 1.
So several input values are mapped on the same output value.
Now only b_{i} = f a_{i} is valid.
The inverse function does not apply, because it would have to supply several values, which
we excluded above.
Nevertheless here we can find the biunique mapping too.
Sentence (1)
Each function f: A B
possesses an internal biunique kernel function K_{Q} with Q = card(B).
Proof (1)
Because of the structure of the 2tuples a number of M = card(B) output values
forces M input values.
Since functions are rightdefinite, all input values must be different too.
This 2tuples form the function K_{Q} (and/or the square matrix
K_{Q}) with Q = M = card(B).
Q is the number of lines and/or columns of this matrix.
If the number of N = card(A) of the input values is greater
than Q, then NQ input values must be redundant and must map on values, which were
already reached by K_{Q}.
For N = Q = M applies: f = K_{Q}.
Since K_{Q} always exists, we now can represent each function based on
its characteristic kernel function K_{Q}.
Sentence (2)
Each function f can be expressed as a combination of a mapping function q_{A} and
the kernel function K_{Q}.
Proof (2)
From sentence (1) we know that each function f: A
B contains a kernel function K_{Q} with Q = card(B).
We chose two new sets A_{q} and B_{q} for the
mapping K_{Q}: A_{q}
B_{q}.
It applies: B_{q} = B und A_{q}
A.
We close the gap between A and A_{q} with a
mapping function q_{a}: A
A_{q}.
Then the function f can be written in the Calculus
as f = x . K_{Q} ( q_{a} x ).
In the case card(A) = Q it's easy to set q_{a} = I (identity).
Examination:
f = x . K_{Q} ( q_{a} x )
= x . K_{Q} ( I x )
= x . K_{Q} x = K_{Q}.
In the case card(A) > Q we must select q_{A} in such a way that those
Q elements from A, which form K_{Q}, are mapped directly on A_{q}.
The redundant input values remain and are mapped on A_{q} in such a way
that the result values are the same after passing through K_{Q} as if we would have
mapped directly in B.
The redundant input values are quasi mapped on a representative in
A_{q}.
This Mapping is always possible without any problems.
In proof (2) we specified B_{q} = B.
However we could have done this also in a different way.
By introducing a further mapping function q_{b}:
B_{q} B
we set q_{b} = I and receive the same result.
Again we can generalize this and thus the kernel function
K_{Q}: A_{q}
B_{q} is replaced by the identity function
I_{Q}: {1,2,...,Q} {1,2,...,Q}.
The task of I_{Q} is simply said to map the interval 1,2,...,Q of the
natural numbers on itself.
Depending upon the value of Q we get another identity function
I_{1} , I_{2} , I_{3} , ...
Sentence (3)
Each function f can be expressed as a combination of two mapping functions q_{a} and
q_{b} and one characteristic identity function I_{Q}.
Proof (3)
In proof (2) a function f has been written as
f = x . K_{Q} ( q_{a} x ) .
Now we change this expression slightly to
f = x . q'_{b} ( K_{Q} ( q'_{a} x ) )
and imagine q'_{b} = I and q'_{a} = q_{a}.
Thereby we see that the statement does not change.
Since K_{Q} obtains a biunique mapping, thus K_{Q}: A_{q}
B_{q} is isomorphic to
I_{Q}: {1,2,...,Q} {1,2,...,Q}.
Let I_{Q} be the identity matrix with size Q.
Again we use two mapping functions m_{a}: A_{q}
{1,2,...,Q} und m_{b}: {1,2,...,Q}
B_{q} for the isomorphic mapping.
For f we rewrite the expression as
f = x . q'_{b} ( m_{b} ( I_{Q} ( m_{a} ( q'_{a} x ) ) ) ).
It does not make sense to connect two mapping functions in series, if one mapping function can carry
out the same mapping.
We define q_{b} =
x .( q'_{b} ( m_{b} x ) ) and
q_{a} = x .( m_{a}
( q'_{a} x ) ) and get
f = x . q_{b} ( I_{Q} ( q_{a} x ) ).
In proof (3) we could show that an identity function
I_{Q} with Q = card(B) is embedable into each function f.
Thereby the identity function and/or the number Q is an important classifier.
One can express the relations in
f = x . q_{b} ( I_{Q} ( q_{a} x ) )
graphically.
The picture above shows clearly, that there are two ways to express the mapping
from A on B.
Now we can broaden our considerations to the connections between
two arbitrary functions f_{1} and f_{2}.
Thereby the following mappings apply:
f_{1}: A_{1} B_{1} and
f_{2}: A_{2} B_{2}.
We seize the cardinalities with:
N_{1} = card(A_{1}),
N_{2} = card(A_{2}),
M_{1} = card(B_{1}) and
M_{2} = card(B_{2}).
And the following conditions apply:
N_{1} >= M_{1} and N_{2} >= M_{2}.
The identity functions are:
I_{Q1} mit Q_{1} = M_{1} and
I_{Q2} mit Q_{2} = M_{2}.
Now we form equivalence classes over the differences N_{1}N_{2}
and M_{1}M_{2}.
With that we can compare functions with one another.
The idea behind is the following: It is not important how large the matrices are.
It's only important how many lines or columns they differ from each other.
Examples
N_{1} 
M_{1} 
N_{2} 
M_{2} 
N_{1}N_{2} 
M_{1}M_{2} 
5 
4 
5 
4 
0 
0 
12 
12 
12 
12 
0 
0 
6 
4 
3 
3 
3 
1 
8 
6 
5 
5 
3 
1 
12 
12 
10 
8 
2 
4 
The differences N_{1}N_{2} und M_{1}M_{2}
can be registered into a twodimensional coordinate system.
With that, the connections become clearer.
Since we always subtract the cardinalities of f_{2} our reference system is f_{2}.
The origin of the coordinate system expresses the identity to f_{2}, i.e. the point (0;0)
is assigned to all functions with matrices which have the same size according to f_{2}.
If f_{2} is a patented function, we can state that for each function f_{1},
if it maps on (0;0), is a patent infringement of f_{2}.
Proof (4)
N_{1}N_{2}=0 und M_{1}M_{2}=0 means
equal matrices in size.
The identity matrices have the same size because of
Q_{1}=M_{1}=M_{2}=Q_{2}.
There are directly many redundant input values too, because of
N_{1}M_{1}=N_{2}M_{2}.
Transformed:
N_{1}N_{2}=M_{1}M_{2}, thus 0=0.
Thus a biunique mapping between the two functions exists.
f_{1} x can be represented as q_{b}
( f_{2} ( q_{a} x ) ).
Now we show that all functions f_{1} mit M_{1}M_{2}=0
and N_{1}N_{2}>0 represents a patent infringement of f_{2}.
Proof (5)
M_{1}M_{2}=0 means equal identity matrices in size
because of Q_{1}=M_{1}=M_{2}=Q_{2}.
Since N_{1}N_{2}>0, this means that f_{1}
has more redundant input values than f_{2}.
However redundant input values can always be reduced to a representative
by a mapping function, see proof (2).
Let f'_{1} x' =
q_{b} ( f_{2} ( q'_{a} x' ) )
denote a function as under proof (4) which maps onto (0;0).
With a mapping function m_{a} we map the redundant values x on
their representatives in x'.
Thus: x' = m_{a} x and f_{1} x =
q_{b} ( f_{2} ( q'_{a} ( m_{a} x ) ) ).
Since we can combine two mapping functions to one, we write
f_{1} x = q_{b} ( f_{2} ( q_{a} x ) ) with
q_{a} x = q'_{a} ( m_{a} x ).
If we use the proof (5) reversely, we can say that we can reach
each function on the axis N_{1}N_{2}>=0 by adding
redundant input values to f_{2}.
From the view of the matrices this means an adding of lines.
In addition we can add columns and it arises a new axis.
Now we show that all functions f_{1}, which lie on this axis are
a patent infringement of f_{2}.
Proof (6)
We prove constructionally, by starting in f_{2}.
When adding columns we must note that we cannot do that independently of the lines.
Since we are restricted to functions, each new column forces a new line.
If this would not be like that, there would be several output values which is not a function.
We will move on a 45 degrees axis.
Thus actually everything is already proven.
Since we went out of f_{2} then the new matrix contains f_{2} in a
submatrix after adding.
Since f_{2} cannot compute all values of
f_{1}, we can accomplish this with another function
f_{3} and a conditional branching.
f_{1} x can e.g. simply be represented as
q_{b} ( ( if ( zusatz x ) f_{3} f_{2} ) ( q_{a} x ) ),
with if = p x y . p x y
and zusatz as a function, which supplies
true = x y . x
if x is a new added value and otherwise
false = x y . y.
This selects either the function f_{3} or f_{2}
for further computation.
Since a 45 degrees axis is not very descriptive, we amend our coordinate system a little bit.
We can make a transformation of coordinates, by subtracting simply
N_{1}N_{2}, i.e. our horizontal axis is now
(M_{1}M_{2})(N_{1}N_{2}).
Thus changes at the matrices concerning changes in the number of lines or columns
are similar to moving parallel to the axises.
The results of proof (5) and (6) can be combined.
Any function f_{1} is attainable, if one starts in (0;0) and continues in running
to the right on the horizontal axis until the same coordinate value.
Then one runs on the vertical axis until the same coordinate value upward is reached.
Thus the whole first quadrant can be achieved.
Now we derive the patent infringement for the second quadrant.
This is somewhat more difficult, since f_{1} possesses less tuples than f_{2}.
However, since one may assume that a computation over more tuples within f_{1}
is possible which cannot be seen outward, then the following is immediately understandable.
Proof (7)
A function f_{1}, which lies in the second quadrant, has less tuples
than the embedded function f_{2}.
We create a function f_{3}, which we obtain from f_{1} by adding further tuples.
This means a horizontal shift to the right.
We repeat until we meet the vertical axis N_{1}N_{2}.
This position is determined by
(M_{1}M_{2})(N_{1}N_{2})=0 and/or
(M_{1}M_{2})=(N_{1}N_{2}).
From proof (5) we know that a function, which lies on this axis represents a
patent infringement of f_{2}.
This function has enough tuples, in order to cover f_{2} totally.
We embed f_{3} in f_{1}.
This is not a trick.
In the analysis of statement b) we saw that it's a current practice.
There we had described a function with only 2 tuples with functions, which were
defined completely over .
Due to proof (6) one must regard all functions as derivatives, which were obtained by
moving to the right in this coordinate system.
The function f_{3}
is derivative both from f_{1} and from f_{2}.
Therefore a patent infringement can be demanded from both sides.
So we have proved a covering of the first two quadrants.
We have shown the patent infringement for f_{1} regarding f_{2}.
In addition, it's possible to change the point of reference into f_{1}.
Then we can check the patent infringement for f_{2} regarding f_{1}.
If we do so, the labelling of the axises changes, thus
N_{2}N_{1} and (M_{2}M_{1})(N_{2}N_{1})
has to be computed.
Transformed in (N_{1}N_{2}) and
(M_{1}M_{2})+(N_{1}N_{2}), yields
((M_{1}M_{2})(N_{1}N_{2})), thus one can
see that only the sign changes.
If one changes the sign of both axises for any point in this coordinate system,
it is equivalent to a sequence of reflections at both axises and/or a point reflection
at the origin.
The upper half plane turns down completely on the lower half plane.
So the entire surface can be covered.
We must conclude that the requirement range in statement c) is totally
exaggerated. Nearly any infringement of a patent can be obtained by the
changeableness of functions.
Statement c) has to be declared invalid in regard to software.
d) There are still enough free functions and programs of functions so that the set of all patented functions does not disturb strongly.
According to the result of statement c) statement d) cannot longer be maintained.
Patents on software represent a strong disturbance and there are no opportunities of evasion.
Thus statement d) is wrong.
We showed that a patent infringement condition exists always between two functions.
If one expands this result to more than two functions, one can say that the most trivial
function wins, because it can be shown that the trivial function is always included
in the functions, which are more complex. The reverse does not apply in general.
This shows concretely how dangerous trivial patents are.
Since we have proved the fact that a patent infringement is always present, the
threat by software patents is not longer hypothetical.
Everyone, who calls himself a programmer or computer scientist, cannot stay calm
and watch the game of the patent lobby.
Also, the ones who believe that the own patents will provide an advantage, must see
now that this is not possible in the range of software.
Practically each software project is constantly exposed to the danger of a patent infringement.
It's only a question of time and money, which one would like to invest, in order to construct
a patent infringement.
[BAR81] Barendregt, H.P.: The LambdaCalculus  Its Syntax and Semantics.
Amsterdam: NorthHolland, 1981.
[BAR90] Barendregt, H.P.: Functional Programming and LambdaCalculus.
See also in [LEE90], pp. 321363.
[CHU36] Church, Alonzo: An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number theory.
American Journal of Mathematics 58, 354363, 1936.
[CHU41] Church, Alonzo: The Calculi of Lambda Conversion. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1941.
[DTV74] dtvAtlas zur Mathematik: Grundlagen Algebra und Geometrie,
Tafeln und Texte, Band 1, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, München, 1974.
[ERD22] Erdmann, Karl Otto: Die Bedeutung des Wortes, Aufsätze aus dem
Grenzgebiet der Sprachpsychologie und Logik, Leipzig, 1922
[ERW99] Erwig, Martin: Grundlagen funktionaler Programmierung / von Martin Erwig. 
München; Wien: Oldenbourg, 1999, ISBN 3486251007
[HOP79] John E. Hopcroft, Jeffrey D. Ullman: Introduction to automata theory,
languages and computation, AddisonWesley, 1979, §8.4
[LEE90] van Leeuwen, J. (Ed.): Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science,
Vol. B: Formal Methods and Semantics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990.
[RIC53] Rice, H.G.: Classes of recursively enumerable sets and their decision
problems, Trans. AMS. 89 (1953), 2559
[RIC56] Rice, H.G.: On completely recursively enumerable classes and their key
arrays, J. Symb. Logic 21 (1956), 304341
[SOEUR] M.H.B. Sørensen, P. Urcykcyn: Lectures on the Curry
Howard Isomorphism.
[TUR37] Turing, Alan M.: Computability and Definability,
Journal of Symbolic Logic 2, 1937.
[TUR87] Turing, Alan M.: Intelligence Service: Schr./Alan M. Turing.
(Hrsg. v. Bernhard Dotzler u. Friedrich Kittler). Berlin: Brinkmann & Bose, 1987,
ISBN 3922660223
[WRG86] Whitehead, Alfred North; Russell, Bertrand; Gödel, Kurt (1986): Principia Mathematica:
Vorwort und Einleitungen / Alfred North Whitehead; Betrand Russell. Übers. von Hans Mokre.
Mit einem Beitrag von Kurt Gödel.  3. Aufl.  Frankfurt am Main : Suhrkamp, 1994
(SuhrkampTaschenbuch Wissenschaft ; 593) Einheitsacht.: Principia Mathematica <dt.>
ISBN 3518281933
