Adding intellectual property in math equations

In the world of mathematics, claiming to solve age-old puzzles like Goldbach’s and twin primes is like catching a legendary fish or taming a wild bull — it’s bold and full of intrigue. If a Filipino teacher has truly cracked these mysteries, it would be a triumph not just for math but for national pride, putting the Philippines on the map.

As the math teacher has sought protection from threats of having the equation copied elsewhere, from no less than President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. himself, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines wants to clarify that raw math formulas are like grains of sand on a beach — free for anyone to use.

According to Section 175 of Republic Act 8293 or the IP Code of 1997, the protection of copyright shall not extend to any idea, procedure, system method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere data as such, even if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a work; news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information; or any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof.

Hence, in the context of copyright, what the IP law protects are expressions, like a beautifully illustrated cookbook, but not the basic ingredients themselves. To elaborate, a cookbook that creatively presents recipes with photos and culinary tips may qualify for copyright protection due to its unique presentation. However, the individual recipes themselves remain accessible to all, forming part of the collective knowledge base rather than private intellectual property.

As such, the manuscript, serving as a tangible expression and manifestation of one’s genius, can be protected by copyright.

Meanwhile, Section 22 of the law has explicitly excluded discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods, among others, from patent protection. Relevant to this is the landmark US Supreme Court case of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 US 175 (1981), which centered on the patentability of a process that involved mathematical formulas. The Court held that while mathematical formulas themselves are not patentable, processes or methods that apply these formulas in practical applications may be eligible for patent protection. This decision underscores the principle that IP law seeks to protect practical applications and tangible innovations rather than abstract ideas or scientific principles alone.

In the context of copyright, what the IP law protects are expressions, like a beautifully illustrated cookbook, but not the basic ingredients themselves.

In practical terms, this means that while the Filipino teacher’s purported proofs of the Goldbach and twin prime conjectures would undoubtedly represent a monumental intellectual achievement, the underlying mathematical concepts would not be conferred exclusive rights under IP law and would remain freely accessible for others to study, break down, build upon and challenge.

Protecting creative and inventive expressions rather than the abstract ideas themselves ensures creators and inventors get credit and control over their works, while ideas flow freely in the world of math and beyond. Such ensures that the IP system fulfills its purpose of balancing the rights of creators with the broader public interest in advancing science, culture and even education.

This legal framework not only safeguards the principles of academic freedom but also ensures that advancements in mathematics and other fields can flourish through open dialogue and collaboration. It encourages researchers and educators to share their insights without fear of legal constraints.

While the Filipino teacher’s claim may indeed usher in a new chapter in mathematical discovery — or excited interest in math, which in itself is laudable — it is the legal and ethical frameworks surrounding IP that will continue to guide us and show us that discoveries on the natural order of our world are shared and celebrated for the benefit of all.