Interpreting Quantum Theory
Part 2 - Patent law and the quantum world
In Part I of this article, we looked at the current state of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. We saw how four interpretations remain in the running, with one of them – the Copenhagen Interpretation – often being implicitly presented in textbooks as the orthodox view despite it requiring one to abandon causality at least at the atomic scale. The remaining three of these interpretations present us with very different pictures of the quantum world and the nature of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics.
Here, in Part II of the article, we shall look at how the Copenhagen Interpretation, unlike any of the other three leading interpretations, could lead to undesirable ramifications in the application of patent law to quantum technologies.
Case: Quantum Random Numbers
Consider the following scenario. A quantum technology start-up has developed a new device for generating random numbers for use in cryptography. A key advantage of this new device is said to be its ability to extract entropy from a quantum state of a physical system, and to generate quantum random numbers using that entropy. Classical random number generators extract entropy from classically-described macroscopic physical systems merely assumed to be effectively random. In contrast to this, the new device uses a quantum state which, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, is genuinely random.
Patent Validity
The patent system rests on a core principle. That principle is, in essence, the principle of a deal between the patent applicant (e.g., the inventor) on the one hand, and the State (represented by a Patent Office) on the other. The patent applicant, when applying to the Patent Office to patent the invention, in effect asks the State to grant them time-limited exclusive rights which will curtail the freedoms of others – this is what patent rights do, when used. The State, when judging whether or not to grant those rights, demands something in return. That something is the disclosure, by the patent applicant, of the technical know-how needed to allow others to make and implement the invention – something they will be free to do after the time-limited patent rights expire.
Patent Infringement
In addition to the implications of the Copenhagen Interpretation in the context of patent validity, an interesting implication also arises in the context of patent infringement. To illustrate this point, we consider another fictional scenario, but this time, in the tradition of historical debates in quantum mechanics, we consider a “thought experiment”.
A thought experiment: the C60 particle trajectory
Before entering the fiction of our thought experiment, let me first set the scene with some true background facts. It is true that in 1990, German nuclear physicist Professor Wolfgang Krätschmer invented a method for producing a new form of Carbon: the C60 particle. It is also true that in 1998 the European Patent Office (EPO) granted a patent number EP 0500914B1 for this invention.
De Broglie-Bohm Theory in more detail
Among the alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the de Broglie-Bohm theory is the oldest and best-developed. It continues to be viewed favourably today. It was first proposed by Louis de Broglie in 1927 and independently proposed and greatly developed by David Bohm in 1952.
This view of the world is very different from the Copenhagen view. The wave function is considered to be a physically real entity, existing in space and time. As the celebrated quantum physicist John Stewart Bell once put it, the wavefunction is:
“…just as 'real' and 'objective' as, for example, Maxwell's electromagnetic fields…” [Bell, J. S. (1987). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press. P. 128.]
The European Patent Office View
Patent offices around the world are grappling with how best to assess quantum technology as regards its patentability. For example, some discussions centre upon what special features, if any, this technology may have that mean that it should be assessed differently, or given special considerations, when making decisions on patentability.
Quantum computing technology is one focus of this discussion and, in a series of public dialogues, EPO patent examiners have begun to share their current thinking publicly. That thinking appears to be that quantum computing algorithms do not merit treatment that is any different to the treatment given to classical computing algorithms, when making decisions on patentability.
© 2024 Mewburn Ellis
