Sam Danielson

I discovered something sort of neat today while strumming guitar. Being a neophyte in music theory I’ll describe it like this, the major chord is on the left and the melody note is on the right.

D D
A C#
C C
G B

The melody walks down in half-steps while the chords progress down in full-steps interspersed with fifths.

I suppose I could continue this progression forever but I am less skilled on guitar than keyboard so I have no idea what it sounds like. Continuing. . .

A# A#
F A
G# G#
D# G

Playing with this idea led to a nice sounding and beginner friendly D A C E major chord progression. A random thought about software patents was enough to get me dwelling on the similarities of music and software.

An algorithm is usually defined as a set of steps or rules to solve a problem. A chord progressions obviously fits this definition since it is a sequence which solves the problem of harmonizing a scale or modulating tension through consonance and dissonance. If we consider the following analogies it becomes evident that (chord progression -> algorithm) is the only one that fails in the legal sense even though a chord progression is an algorithm.

• sheet music -> source code :: (ideas on paper, copyright)
• recording -> forked binary code :: (derivative work, copyright, reverse engineering)
• music theory -> computer science :: (math, unpatentable)
• instrument -> hardware :: (identity)
• chord progression -> algorithm :: (uh…?)

I have never heard of a patent on a chord progression. Google Patent Search for chord progression returns patents for algorithms which derive progressions from melodies but not the progressions themselves. A method can be patented and algorithms are methods, therefore algorithms can be patented.

If my problem was not to generate algorithmic music but instead to arrive at the tonic chord from a particular note in the melody the method would naturally describe a progression of chords. Suppose I worded my patent like this: A method to arrive at the tonic triad from the ninth note of a major scale. For some idiotic and historical reason a software patent must include a description of computer hardware. I would assume that my chord progression patent would require similar wording requiring it to be played on a physical instrument. The revised title might begin: Apparatus and technique to arrive. . .

Other musical methods that seem patentable include finger tapping a guitar, overdriven amplifiers, and strumming piano strings since these things were novel at one time. The patent system is opaque and arbitrary. It’s like a poker game where the players are allowed to edit their hand, but with an infinite number of suites and face cards. The game destroys innovation and transforms productivity into litigation.

I’ve never applied for a patent or been sued for infringement so it would seem that I’m either an arbitrary complainer or a disinterested third party. Unfortunately we are all hurt by the loss in market competition, increased litigation, and stifled innovation that is the direct result of frivolous software patents.