Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Melbourne Man Patents ... The Wheel 116

Posted by Hemos from the and-i've-got-a-bridge-in-brooklyn-to-sell-you dept.
ssergE writes: "This article in The Age (A Melbourne, Australia newspaper) tells the story of a patent lawyer who has just recieved an Innovation Patent for a 'circular transportation facilitation device,' aka: a wheel." Of course software should be patentable. Look at how closely the patents are looked over -- clear indication that the world is ready to patent extremely complicated pieces of code. *sigh*
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Melbourne Man Patents...The Wheel More

Melbourne Man Patents...The Wheel

Comments Filter:
  • It's a patent for the wheel. Check out this link [delphion.com] for the patent or this article [harvard-magazine.com] for more information.
  • #include

    int main(void)
    {
    printf("Hello, world!\n");

    return 0;
    }
    And offcourse evere piece of code that does something like this...
    While reading you have to realize that
    • Special thanks goes to the women that has printf patented.
    • This posting has nothing to do with my personal opinions what so ever.
    • I'm _NOT_ responsible for anything I type.
    • The above piece of code may OR may not exactly what you want it to do. It's your responsibility to figure that out.
    • If your screen explodes during reading this comment. Or your computer crashes I don't feel responsible for anything it may have cause.
    • I can make up extra rules whenever I want too

  • Well, if they had accepted my submission of this earlier today (see below), where I pointed this out in my write-up, this wouldn't be such a problem. I just guess the /. editorial staff aren't that interested in accuracy in reporting. Or maybe I've just made my way onto the submissions killfile somehow. Who knows?

    2001-07-02 01:59:21 Australian Lawyer Patents Wheel (articles,patents) (rejected)

  • FUD. The person who patented the wheel appears to be claiming that these Innovoation Patents will allow people to claim that something is patented (check out our new Honda Outback with unique patented rolling things) even though the claim is dubious.

    There seems to be a large group of laws with this fundamental problem: the law is ONLY fair is "wrongdoers" are brought to court, but no one has either the time or the resources to sue, or too much damage is done on an economic, societal, mind-share, or emotional level for the court to recompense. But that's just my patented two cents.
  • Patent.

    Patent.

    PATENT. patent. PaTeNt. pAtEnT.

    Patentpatentpatentpatent.

    Yup - patently absurd!

  • Isn't that what about 50% of Heinlein's stories are about?

  • Re:Some things should be patented! (Score:4)

    by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Monday July 02, 2001 @05:33AM (#114783)
    > But, what about those companies who have created such a complex algorithm for a product and have it coded in a product?

    *NO* algorithm should be able to be patented. Else you start down the slipperly slope "Well this one algo is slightly complicated, so it should be patented as well." Where do you draw the line for "complex" algorithms. A algo may complex to the layman, but not to someone versed in the field.

    Remember: Algorithms ARE jsut mathematical formulas. Should we allow patenting complex calculations too?! I think NOT.
  • >

    Is that the new MS Enhanced syntax?

    Alan
  • Umm excuse me [slashdot.org]?

  • Re:Include #IANAL.h (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What he should have included was...

    #include <ianacp.h>
    /* I am not a C programmer */

  • A New Slashdot Article Low (Score:3)

    by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Monday July 02, 2001 @06:47AM (#114787)

    Do you guys even bother to read the articles that you are referring to? THIS IS NOT A STANDARD PATENT!!!. It's a new system installed in Australia to register innovations. It is accompanied by no review process, and provides no monopoly rights to the registrants. In addition the article goes on to explain that this is actually a fraudulent filing, punishable under law because the filer falsely claimed he was the inventor.

    You guys are the WORST journalists on the net. This stuff makes Matt Drudge look good, for crying out loud.
  • Ok. I'm versed in the field(not a layman), and it's complex. If other companies got ahold of this algorithm, it would level the playing field and we would no longer be the industry leader.

    Patenting this is not stifling innovation, it's fostering innovation. You are taking the extreme stance of being a complete ass. "Should we allow patenting complex calculations too?! I think NOT." Everyone seems to jump completely over the edge when it comes to arguments here on /.

    Ok, try this on. You create an industry wide revolution with an agorithm. You are the industry leader and making oodles of $$. Now since you have no patent on this algorithm, some competing company copies it(through some manner which is not theft so you can't sue), and now has completely leveled the playing field and you are back at square one.

    The /. eutopian society where everyone shares and where companies don't try to make money and become powerful industry leaves, just doesn't and will never exist. Try getting out there in the real world and being in this situation...you'll change your tune.
  • While we're on the topic of wierd and wacky patents ... Here's a fun little site I stumbled across http://soundreach.simplenet.com/psp/ [simplenet.com]
  • I think an American already tried this, or something similar to it: http://www.harvard-magazine.com/issues/ja99/right. patent.html [harvard-magazine.com].

    Look at the last paragraph.
  • I know.. I am going to patent SEX. That will make me loads of money, but not from many slashdotters.

    Seriously, if you want to patent something that obviously PREDATES you, putting a patent of the sex process is the way to go!

  • In my opinion not.

    They've a biased mind to this or that direction in various scopes, and use every opportunity to underline this point of view.

    In my opinion "News for Nerds" should actually only report, giving the reader the information he needs to form an opinion. Yes unfortunally in puplic many views of stuff like patents, microsoft, licenses, companies, new technoligies are frivolous chosen without acurate information. However IMMO 'News for Nerds' should primary try to bring this information and not to easy prejudice the public with slashdot editors general opinions, Fear, Disinformation, Untrusts are """THEIR""" weapons, we on the other end should dissociate from that level.

  • *NO* algorithm should be able to be patented. Else you start down the slipperly slope "Well this one algo is slightly complicated, so it should be patented as well." Where do you draw the line for "complex" algorithms. A algo may complex to the layman, but not to someone versed in the field.

    ...you present a good argument against isuing patents based on the complexity of a device alone, yet you don't ever really explain how this is specific to algorithms.

    Why is a novel, original, groundbreaking algorithm any less deserving of a patent than a novel, original, groundbreaking device?

    Remember: Algorithms ARE jsut mathematical formulas. Should we allow patenting complex calculations too?! I think NOT.

    ...and also remember: mechanical inventions ARE just various combinations of levers, pulleys, fulcrums, inclined planes, etc. Should we allow patenting complex systems of simple machines, too?

    Now, argue all you want about how the patent system is broken and abused, but I have yet to be convinced that novel, original algorithms fill a magic niche that set them apart from novel, original machines.

  • I think he meant submitting improvement ideas was naive. "Trying to make a difference" may or may not be naive, depending on how you go about it. His point seemed to be that it is naive to think that they are actually going to implement "improvements" that would actually have a real effect on the number or quality of patents being issued. Now there may actually be ways to make a difference. This just isn't one of them.

  • Shoudn't this article have the "funny" icon?

    IMO, Slashcode should let an article have multiple topics. For instance, a Darwin kernel article could go under both Apple and BSD, and a patent humor article such as this one could go under Patents and Humor. It would make topic searching a bit more accurate.

  • I might believe that, if he had made any comments about what might help. But he didn't; he just spouted meaningless nonsense while trashing the original poster. I tend to give more credence to the people who engage their brains before starting into an argument, even if they may not be totally correct.

  • Software companies get to have their cake and eat it too. After the patent rights expire, they still have copyright control over the code, for a fantastically long time. MS-DOS 1.0's copyright should expire sometime around 2050 or so.

    No, 95 years for works made for hire. Try around 2075. DisneyCo and the other MPAA studios are way too good at lobbying for effectively perpetual copyright [pineight.com].

  • You can view the status of stories you submittied in your personal page. There's no way (that I've seen) to review a list of submitted stories.
    ---

  • Re:It might be nice... (Score:3)

    by onion2k ( 203094 ) on Monday July 02, 2001 @04:28AM (#114799) Homepage
    These 'Innovation Patents' are just a rubber stamp yes, BUT, having been awarded one the holder can legally claim to own the 'patent' on such device. Ergo stupidity. A 'Patent Approved' label becomes meaningless.

    Just because you disagree with the inflection of the editor does not immediately invalidate the story as /. news.

    Try being constructive next time.
  • Quick, dig it out and well hit 'em with prior art!
  • So some patent clerk with time on his hands gets an 'idea patent' for the wheel, certainly for his sole amusement. It might have well been a nebulous concept such as 'a better mouse trap.' I think it's kinda funny, really. Take it for what it was - a joke - rather than crucifying /. moderators for their apparent faux pas concerning the finer points of patent law. We need people who do inane things (Vide: This response.) to show just how inane the world has become, assuming it was ever any better.

    Root DOWN
    grep what I sed?
  • Sounds like Heinlein by the style, though I don't recognize the story.

  • Re:hilarious (Score:5)

    by Dr_Cheeks ( 110261 ) on Monday July 02, 2001 @04:31AM (#114803) Homepage Journal
    Then we can eliminate the influx of needless patents by denying the use of patents....
    10 Ah, but if you deny the use of patents then your patent on patents can no longer be enforced, allowing people to patent stuff once more, only then they'd be infringing on your patent on patents and your ban on patents, though of course your ban on patents would invalidate your patent patent.....
    20 GOTO 10

    I'd love to see this go to court. And isn't it weird how funny the word patent starts to sound after you've squeezed it into a sentence 10 times? Patent patent patent....

  • Here's a patent [164.195.100.11] for what basically works out to be a toaster!
    (thanks to steve for the link)
  • I just read an interesting interview with Steve Mills from IBM in Sky Magazine [delta-sky.com] where he proclaims with much pride that:
    "No company in the world realizes as many software patents in a given year as IBM, and that has been the case as long as software patents have been granted."
    I suspect that IBM's patents make a little more sense and don't cover mainstream computing issues that seem immediately obvious, but you have to wonder how they are getting so many and what they cover.
  • Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

    "...I'm just a Caveman, your world frightens and confuses me. When I use my fax machine are there little deamons in there typing the message? When I'm watching my 52" TV I wonder if the people are actually inside the screen?"
  • 'You know, for drinks'

    The Coen Bros. always rule, and this time they are even on-topic!
  • Tsk, tsk, tsk.

    The problem this guy has with the innovation-registration system is that they're called patents. Hence, this fellow can claim to have patented the wheel, whereas he really only registered it as an innovation. In short, the article's claim that he recieved a "patent" is accurate; the problem is that patents in Austrailia now come in two kinds, and the article (intentionally, if one wishes to read it that way) highlights the potential for confusion between the two.
  • Dear sir,

    I would like to patent the complex calculation 22/7. AFAIK this calculation has not been completely solved as of today, and therefore sounds like a really complex calculation.
    Yours etc...
  • Well If you'd rather not watch any Television/cable/Dish whatsoever, I wouldn't say "fuck my company". My company is responsible for getting the ads/programming/content delivered from the companies to the distributors.

  • ``Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.''

    Got any proof, or are you just a troll?

  • Who moderated this funny? This is just annoying. A patent is the right to forbid someone else to do something. What the original poster meant was ``denying the use of patents'' to everyone else. Patents would be pretty useless if you couldn't implement them yourself. Besides, BASIC sucks.

    Slashdot--Just like an insane asylum, except the inmates go around calling themselves geeks.

  • Please explain which things in nature or human design are not the expression of, or at least expressable in, mathematical formulas. Not to imply I believe there are no such things, but surely a sizeable majority of the mathematical, if not the scientific, community is prone to this belief.

    To exempt anything from a patent because it essentially involves an algorithm may be to exempt all things from patents. An arguable position, but not because mathematics is a special case. Or are we only to patent things in the realms of the arts and spirituality, where some would say mathematics does not express the essence as it does in the realms of engineering?

    You have used my patented Picasso process in the portrayal of my patented Buddha, please decist!
  • No no. It was done in Victoria. They don't have the wheel down there. Its a new discovery for them.
  • basically, registration means nothing!

    Hardly. If company A has a "real" patent dated 1999, and you produce a registered idea in 1998 that is exactly the same, that's evidence that company A is not the (first) innovator. There's no evidence that you're the first, either, but that doesn't necessarily matter - it's enough to invalidate their patent (which is what I'm personally interested in - invalidating patents, not clamping down on, or leeching revenue from, other people's implementations of my ideas). They can't go back and say, "uh, actually, we invented it in 1998" - it goes by the patent date (either filing date or approval date, depending on jurisdiction, etc.) This applies to prior art checking both at registration stage and at trial stage (if the patent office was too stupid to have noticed the prior registration - which, as we all know, never happens. Ahem.) IANAL.

  • Was it #include the header you were looking for?? tut tut, and i didnt even use a manual.
  • Does this mean I can sue him as negligent and indirectly responsible for my last car accident?

    I read the patent. It doesn't say anything about brakes.

  • That one click patent doesn't look to bad after this crap...

    excuse me why I go patent a pointy stick


    --

  • Re:Wheel not patented (Score:3)

    by RedDork ( 147298 ) on Monday July 02, 2001 @02:07PM (#114819)
    These patents are defensive mechanisms. They allow you to put information in the public domain quickly. This allows you to deny a competitor a patent.
  • Excuse me, I'd like to finish a rebuttal to all of this, but the CIA and the NSA called, we are going over the newest crop of intellectual property. You know, gotta get em to market... BEFORE YOUR COUNTRY. You know what is great about the USA? We actually have an espionage ring that is SO BUSY stealing the ideas of other countries instead of, say, little sidebar projects, like, I dunno, protecting the nation from terrorism or other dangers. God bless the USA. We still beat you!!! (Poster giggles like a schoolgirl and runs off into the sunset) I love unchecked rhetoric.
  • How can I sign up to be a beta tester?
  • > If no one else thought of it before, then why shouldn't the inventor get a short monopoly to take advantage of it.

    I agree, granting people a time-limited-monopoly to create and use their implemtnation is an acceptable compromise. i.e. They get a chance to make money on it. But after X number of years the device should become public knowledge for the betterment of society. Or at least that was the orginal *intent* with copyright, since it is not a "natural right", but a government created one.

    People will argue over exactly how long "short" X means, but I'm of the opinion that 5 to 10 years (MAX) for patents and copyright is long enough. (Unlike the current perversion of 75+ years for copyright.)

    > In the physical world, there's lots of simple ideas that people come up with that are relatively trivial to implement but now one thought of before,

    The physical world is no different then the software world. You have 2 parts: a) an idea, b) an implementation.

    The main reason I am against software patents is because it effectively says "you need permission to think."

    I should be able to use *any* algorithm that I come up with on my own, irregardless if someone else has already patentend. I don't need their permission to come up with (good) ideas, and they don't "own" my ideas.

    I don't have a problem with people trying to make money off their formulas (i.e. drug research find different chemical formulas) But stopping someone else because they came to the same conclusion as you, is draconian.

    Cheers

  • Or this one: US5443036: Method of exercising a cat [delphion.com]

    A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a chase instinct.

    Yan

  • oh so biased /. (Score:4)

    by joq ( 63625 ) on Monday July 02, 2001 @04:11AM (#114824) Homepage Journal
    Most know already the Patent system needs an overhaul, and they recently sought comments on how it should go about the changes [1 [slashdot.org] 2 [wipo.int] 3 [uspto.gov]] Instead of everyone being so critical of the PTO, maybe some could all get together here, start a thread on it for a day or two, then forward the highest rated submissions to them, instead of just complaining about the same things over and over.

    Why doesn't Hemos, Taco, or someone else start something similar to when they ask for questions for some interview. Who wouldn't like to have their name associated with changes to the patenting system. Sure you could bitch and moan about how messed up it is, yet when they asked the public, whose only input is negativity, it's not going to get better any time soon.

    My two cents/sense on it all.
  • Granted that on the surface Innovation Patents such as the example in the article can be rubber stamped, but this system really isn't such a bad idea.

    It allows individuals to cheaply (no idea what it costs for this service?) register with a government authority the fact that they had this idea on or around a date. This in itself is going to save the small time or once off innovator in the long run.

    How many incidents are there where ideas have been taken and patented by larger companies? I'm sure I've read about a few. Even if it doesn't happen all that often it's certainly a weight off the mind of the innovator to know that they can dispute future cashing in on ideas or patent registrations simply by pointing to a government endorsed register.

    Simply, the new system is for peace of mind and for easy resolution of disputes.

  • Wheel not patented (Score:4)

    by woogie ( 18354 ) on Monday July 02, 2001 @04:06AM (#114826) Homepage
    This was not a standard patent. It is an Innovation Patent which isn't reviewed by the patent office, and doesn't grant monopoly powers over the invention. It's not entirely clear to me what good it does the holder.

    Woogie
  • > Please explain which things in nature or human design are not the expression of, or at least expressable in, mathematical formulas.

    Art. Ok, so maybe ALL art can be expressed as a formula. I'm suprised somone hasn't started patenting their art yet. :)

    > To exempt anything from a patent because it essentially involves an algorithm may be to exempt all things from patents.

    An ideal goal that I support, but I don't think that's feasible at this time. The *root* of the question is, how do we make a "fair" compromise.

    One of the main problems I have with the whole idea of "intellectal property" is that it effectively says you need permission to think.
    e.g. I thought of this (idea) first. You can't use this idea, even if you come up with it yourself, and it doesn't matter if you never have seen my idea.

    Ownership over meta-physical objects is absurd. You didn't create them, you can't destory them, so what gives you the "right" to own them?

    Does that mean I believe people are free to trade digital copies of books, music, etc? No, because the artist doesn't (usually) want his stuff freely traded away.

    Cheers

  • It might be nice... (Score:5)

    by geomcbay ( 263540 ) on Monday July 02, 2001 @04:07AM (#114828)
    Do the Slashdot editors read the articles? Clearly they do not. This is an Australian "Innovation Patent". If you had read the article you would see this is really nothing more than a registration of an idea. Quick, easy, simple to do. Doesn't give the 'patent' holder any rights to lawsuits, etc, it's just an official registration of an idea.

    The guy who patented the wheel wasn't really trying to make a point that patents were too easy to get, his point was that these "Innovation Patents" should be renamed so as not to be confused with *real* patents, where prior art, etc are actually researched. These "Innovation Patents" are just rubberstamped, basically like a way to notarize them for timing purposes (should someone want to prove prior art, or that they registered the idea first in the future).

    Once again Slashdot editors show their ignorance of what they are even posting.

  • I've just been granted the patent on Fusion, so anyone making use of any molecule beyond Hydrogen will be paying royalties, shall we form a LLC and live like kings on the backs of everyone else ??
  • Maybe I should patent the the heart and charge people royalties in order to have one. Seriously, this is just as bad as yesterday's Napster crap.
  • Go right ahead, it won't do you much good if I get the patent for walking upright.
  • Countries across the world have chosen to model new patent systems after the United States Patent Office. Go figure.

    And yes, I read the article. Yes, I'm an American. Regardless, the humor of the situation wasn't lost on me.

    GreyPoopon
    --

  • But,wouldn't this fall under previous use?
  • coz the Aussies might sue you for skin diseases
    --

  • Doesn't give the 'patent' holder any rights to lawsuits, etc,

    I don't know where you live, but here in the 'civilized' part of the world you don't need any special 'rights' to bring a lawsuit against practically anybody.
    This is a two-edged sword since megalomaniac-corporations with almost unlimited legal budget can sue the pants of any normal person. If they, in addition have a paper to back their claims of patent on your summer-school project, you realy have no chance of justice.

    Apart from that, your posting was in harmony with reality.
    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb15CB32EF3AF9C0E5D7272 C3AF4F2snlbxq'|dc

  • > Who's with me: Let's patent the patent. Then we
    > can eliminate the influx of needless patents by
    > denying the use of patents....

    You silly, silly fool. Do you think you would deny the use of patents, had you such a patent? No, you would let them be used in exchange for a 1% cut on the gross proceeds of any device sold with a patent.

    In fact, you would become much more lax than the government in issuing patents, giving them out the way Willy gave out pardons. "Patent the wheel?" you'd say. "Sounds good to me."

  • Re:oh so biased /. - Methinks not (Score:4)

    by Cryptimus ( 243846 ) on Monday July 02, 2001 @06:12AM (#114838) Homepage
    Don't be so bloody naive.

    The American Patent Office is doing exactly what the government of the United States wants it to do. Assign rights to any and every idea to American companies to enable them to attempt to control any and all lucrative technologies.

    Essentially the Patent Office is all about IP. It is actively engaged in the practice of encouraging intellectual piracy by US corporations. The sheer breadth of the obvious solutions granted patent status is impossible to comprehend unless you're prepared to drown yourself in the paperwork.

    Most people are aware that the demise of the cold war has seen US government intelligence agencies focus their energies upon corporate espionage. This is designed to give US companies an advantage over foreign rivals by engaging in activies that are illegal domestically but are apparently okay when your competition is foreign.

    Is it too much of a conceptual leap to understand that the US Patent Office is a piece of legal legerdemain designed to accomplish exactly the same goals?

    Patents are being granted to US companies at rates that defy justification. IBM alone files thousands of patents a year. Yet the US Patent Office continues to grant patents willy-nilly to so-called 'inventions' that are clearly obvious or predated by previous work.

    This isn't simple incompetence, it's deliberate culpability. Rather than a program of stupidity, beauracratic inefficiency or simple mis-understanding, it's an extremely active policy of Intellectual Piracy.

    Indeed, there exists a US company (at least one) whose entire purpose is to conduct patent searches in foreign domains for new ideas with the intent of subsequently patenting these ideas in the US before the real inventor does so.

    Then the US pressures foreign governements into looking kindly upon any patents which have already been 'legitimised' by the US patent office. Those governments with a shred of common sense laugh themselves silly and tell Uncle Sam to fuck off.

    Welcome to the wonderful world of Intellectual Piracy. Have a nice day.

  • > Sounds like Heinlein by the style, though I
    > don't recognize the story.

    You may be thinking of "The Man Who Sold The Moon", which this reminded me of, too.

    In that, some charlatan tries to acquire the moon by buying the rights to it from all the (poor) equatorial countries, planning to claim that could indeed sell it to him because they owned the exclusive rights to it under international law. You see, it was technically in their airspace, if a little high up, and if he could be the first there, that would really clinch it...

  • Re:hmm (Score:2)

    by jd ( 1658 )
    Problem is, all politicians, civil servants, lawyers and Metallica drummers would be exempt. (Same as if you patented the brain, only there, you'd also have to include school teachers, PHB's, taxi drivers, and most of the rest of the planet.)

    As an alternative, how about patenting the voice box? That certainly seems to be in abundance.

  • "But he has no immediate plans to patent fire, crop rotation or other fundamental advances in civilisation."

    Fantastic! Then my favorite "Big Business" company can patent them instead, and then start suing aboriginal people who use fire. Damn those natives not obeying IP laws!
    ---

  • If other companies got ahold of this algorithm, it would level the playing field and we would no longer be the industry leader.

    First, I think you're mis-using the phrase, "level the playing field". To oppose a level playing field is to oppose the idea that your competitors deserve a fair shot at success. Second, if your algorithm is that innovative, you'd probably be better off keeping it a trade secret, where others can only guess what it may be, rather than patent it, where you have to make it public knowledge (allowing similar implementations).

    Patenting this is not stifling innovation, it's fostering innovation.

    How surprising to hear such omething like that from someone named Win-Developer. :-)

    Try getting out there in the real world and being in this situation...you'll change your tune.

    Sorry, no. I am in the "real world", and I've found that I don't discard my ethics when they become inconvenient.

  • `Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.''

    Even if that post was economical with the truth - which I'm not saying it was - which of these two is more plausible?

    • That the patent system has been deliberately corrupted to allow big corporations - who pay massive campaign contributions - the right to patent the obvious, and small variations on prior art, in order to create legal monopolies (that's precisely what patents are).
    • That this is all a big mistake, and once politicians realise it they will say "Oh, sorry for the oversight, I didn't realise the patent office was behaving contrary to the Constitution", and fix it.
    Come on.

    If the latter, what is the "adequate explanation" relating to stupidity? I haven't seen one that I consider "adequate".

  • Errr...except those people are actually real. Look at the Lunar Embassy [lunarembassy.com] for more information. Some people will do just about anything to convince others to give them money.
  • on the proccess by with two oxygen molecules are bound and made breathable, I'd be happy to license to you so WE can collect on breathing though
  • The govenment needs to wake up! Sherm
  • "The trouble with computers is that they are sophisticated idiots". Tom Baker, Dr. Who

    No, that's far too kind. I've known some pretty idiotic idiots, but software puts them in the shade for idiocy. I'm sure even George Bush could hold a more coherent conversation with a ten-year-old than the latest Eliza equivalent.

  • Listen, I totally agree that most patents that are out there for software is completely bull$hit. But, what about those companies who have created such a complex algorithm for a product and have it coded in a product? I work for such a company(I really can't explain the algorithm that'd be a breach of contract). The product is based on an extremely fault-resilient algorithm for broadcasting encoded data.

    This algorithm is patented, and I completely agree with it. I don't buy that by patenting certain things we're stifling innovation or hurting anyone.

    There are plenty of other companies still creating algorithms, it's just that ours is by far the most scalable and most creative(IMO). We're the industry leader in the market we're in, but by no means are we of M$ caliber.

    You get what's called 'competitive advantage.' You get to use an (allegedly) superior algorithm for your particular application. And you get to use it for as long as it takes someone else to come up with either the same algorithm, a functionally equivalent algorithm, a better algorithm, or an acceptable algorithm that isn't as good as yours but makes no different in the competitive marketplace.

    That's all you deserve. By what logic do you assume that:

    A) Your algorithm is going to make any kind of *difference* to your product that will translate to dollars and cents. Either the algorithm has to make the product significantly BETTER to the point where this influences product consumers or it makes the product CHEAPER to produce in some fashion. If it accomplishes neither of these goals, then why do you deserve to charge others for its use?

    B) You're the only ones capable of coming up with this algorithm? If someone comes up with the same algorithm independently, why shouldn't they also be allowed to utilise the fruits of their labour? Oh, only YOU are allowed to do that because YOU'RE FIRST? What kind of screwed up logic is that?

    C) That designing and implementing the algorithm allows you to prevent someone from coming up with a functionally equivalent algorithm? Oh, because you jumped through a legal set of hoops FIRST, you get to stop other people from innovating?

    D) That someone can't do better than your algorithm? They're not allowed to innovate and create superior technology because you've already come up with the inferior version it's based upon?

    Incidentally is your algorithm based upon anything else? Does it sit in glorious isolation or does it rely upon ideas made freely available by previous software pioneers?

    I'm betting it's not. In practice it's impossible to claim total originality in software seeing as software itself is based upon concepts of computing by pioneers such as Turing, Von Neumann and so forth.

    In other words, having made use of unpatented ideas, algorithms and technologies to create an algorithm you wish to patent, I say fuck you jack and fuck your company.

    "If I see further it's because I stood on the shoulders of giants, not because I chopped off my competitors' legs." - Cryptimus
  • damn these stupid < and > thingys
    that prolly happend to you too.. soz
    #include <stdio.h>
    is what it should be :(
  • Why feel sorry for that company?!

    Companies don't have a RIGHT to be PROFITABLE.

    As for the real world, we know society isn't perfect, but we shouldn't be keeping the status quo in place simply because "that is the way things are". We should be trying to change them. Your argument leads to a vicious circle: policies have goals which mirror the current situation, hence things never change, hence goals never change, etc.

  • I actually agree with the above posting, despite being an avowed despiser of proprietary software constructed in corporate caves. Why? Well, read on.

    Patents, in order to be effective, require a patent filing, which is supposed to explain how the invention (in this case, it would be the program) actually works, well enough so that a person skilled in the art (i.e. a programmer) could construct the invention (code the program) without any real difficulty (well, there's always debugging I guess).

    In this, they are unlike copyright law as applied to computer software. In order to get a copyright on a piece of code, you don't have to release the source code. (This is the curse of modern copyright law that the GPL tries to get around.) Note that this make computer programming copyright different from all other forms of copyright. When I read a book or watch a movie, I can figure out how the copyrighted item was made relatively easily. In the computer programming field, however, reverse engineering in some cases is actually illegal.

    Not so in patent law. The idea is the patent filing is supposed to make reverse engineering not only legal, but quite easy. The tradeoff? The patent-holder gets 20 years of protection, after which time reverse engineering is completely legal.

    20 years might seem like a long time, and it is. However, what it means -now- is that if you have, say, an early Apple ][, there are no patent rights associated with it. This may not seem like a big deal, but sometime in the 2010s when all the Pentium patents expire, look for some really, really cheap webservers. (How much does silicon cost? ;)

    But okay. Software companies get to have their cake and eat it too. After the patent rights expire, they still have copyright control over the code, for a fantastically long time. MS-DOS 1.0's copyright should expire sometime around 2050 or so.

    This is the problem. Why do we allow copyright to apply to software, especially binary software code? It's dumb. We're protecting people who want to hide their code.

    We should just use the patent system. Sure, sometimes patents would be issued for programs that shouldn't get them, but look at the upside: only 20 years of protection anyway, and the IP rights holders would have to explain at least somewhat what their programs do.

    Sound like the GPL? Thought so. But try telling RMS that. sigh.

  • these innovation patents are not such a bad idea at all... First of all, they do not grant the owner a monopoly, secondly it gets the idea into the 'innovation' office, maybe even the patent office.

    Is it such a crazy idea to transform this 'innovation patent' into a prior art machine? I mean, a low cost way of getting the idea inside the patent office?

    Assuming that the patent office is forced to search such a innovation patent database, this might get some of the more ridiculous quirks out of the system.

    Just an idea. We might be better off with some more radical changes instead of smoothing things over a bit though.
  • Now that they have "The Wheel", it's likely they'll be using chariots. I hope you have pikemen already!
  • actually, I looked at the patent. it reads like a patent for a specific kind of bike wheel. perhaps not a great patent, but not, you know, 6000 B.C. kinds of stuff. :)

  • Valid point about Disney; the reason I suggested 2050 was because the cap in most of the world is 70 years, where the work-for-hire doctrine doesn't apply (it's US only). and hey, if you can copy it in the UK legally, I'm not sure you could do much about net.piracy. ;)

    The general point remains, though. MS-DOS 1.0 should be considered fairly out of date by whenever it finally escapes copyright, unlike, for example, Dickens, which people still read and enjoy, even though it's no longer copyrighted.

  • As per the IP Australia [ipaustralia.gov.au] website:

    an innovation patent is a relatively fast, inexpensive protection option available from IP Australia, and is the most recent in a range of other intellectual property rights . Protection lasts for a maximum of 8 years.

    It seems that the patent does offer protection.

    Vivek

  • I know it's not what you're talking about, but it sounds like that time travelling episode of "The Tick."

    They couldn't find the cavelady, who invented the wheel, to send her back to her own time. The next day's headline was: "Cavewoman Sues for Back-Royalites on the Wheel."
  • On the IP Australia [ipaustralia.gov.au] website, under the topic - why search for patents? The first points says - Don't reinvent the wheel. :-)

    Vivek

  • The idea is the patentability of the invention is decided when the patent is challenged. Then the patent office reviews it etc. The intention was that it is cheaper than a full patent but because the inovation patent is governed by all the same rules as a normal patent (if there is such a thing) it really still needs to be written by a patent lawyer which is where most of the cost comes from anyway.

    And you can tell this was written by a patent attorney. "Circular transportation facilitation device". "Wheel" would have something representing regular english.
  • About a month ago I was speaking with an Italian law student and her husband about patent law in Italy. Interestingly enough, they told me that you could place a patent on the bicycle in very little time, with no review. Italy apparently doesn't review patents. However, if you want to enforce your patent, then <b>you</b> have to go to court and prove prior art. Is this the way they do things in Austrlia?

    That's right, patent anything you like, but you can't collect licensing fees from someone who won't pay them until you take them to court and prove prior art. I believe you can get an injunction though.

    This left me thinking. Well, at first I was shocked and thought the whole idea was ridiculous. Hmmmm. But then I thought, why do we need a patent office in the first place. It's obvious that the above system would favor those who had the money and clout to back up their patents in court, but isn't that the way our system works in the first place? Why the administrative hassle (and time sink) of looking for prior art in the first place, <b>before</b>one gets their patent?

    Then I thought... gee, maybe we've moved to the Italian system after all. :-)

    Keep smiling!
  • Can someone please tell me why the HTML tags didn't work on that post? I chose the Extrans (sic) option...

    Hmmmm...

    (Obviously, I'm submiting this post as HTML formatted, but I don't like having to add DIV and BR tags when I don't have to. Yeah, I know, I'm lazy.)
  • We always knew he had some relation to yoda. Lay off . =)

    ---
  • Don't reinvent the wheel, just pay the licence fee..

    //rdj
  • I can't understand those last few lines in the post. Then again, I'm not very good at English..

  • the reason I suggested 2050 was because the cap in most of the world is 70 years

    William H. Gates III is still alive, isn't he? In cases where works for hire do not have a fixed term, the rule is LIFE of the last surviving contributor plus 70 years. MS-DOS won't go PD until at LEAST 70 years after some slashdot zealot murders bill gates.

    "Life plus 70." Doesn't that sound like a prison sentence [harvard.edu]?

    Dickens, which people still read and enjoy

    Charles Dickens, sure, he's on Project Gutenberg, but what about Geoffrey Chaucer? If DisneyCo has its way, copyright terms will be repeatedly extended until the average reader can no longer understand the language of works written hundreds of years ago in 1922, and it'll still be constitutional [everything2.com] according to the letter of the law.

    Public domain is a closed constant set, and the consumers show their approval of this by voting with their dollars for products whose makers engage in destruction of the value of the public domain. Write your representatives in whatever government you're under if you disagree with these practices.

  • Well, I've already got dibs on patenting Jesus.

    So don't even think about it. Someday those profits will just start rolling in...

  • Re:It might be nice... (Score:3)

    by Twylite ( 234238 ) <twylite&crypt,co,za> on Monday July 02, 2001 @05:09AM (#114869) Homepage

    Shouldn't we be welcoming this "idea registration" idea? How many calls have we had in the past 6 months for a prior art / ideas registry to assist in fighting software patents?

    On a more serious note, the officials in question fobbed off the problem by saying that the claim was false, as the claimant hadn't invented the wheel. But the point of a patent (or even registration of an idea) is to have some form of evidence that you DO have an original claim to the idea! Were the registration challanged, it falls back on your word that you were the innovator ... basically, registration means nothing!

  • I didn't know Og the Caveman [tdstelme.net] lived in oz.
    • Companies don't have a RIGHT to be PROFITABLE.

    I'll refine that:

    • Companies don't have a right to use de facto or legalised monopoly power to take wealth from many people and give it to a few major shareholders.
    • Companies have both a right and indeed a social duty to generate wealth for many (shareholders, employees and consumers) through genuine technical innovation and level playing field competitiveness.

    In other words, we should reward go-getters for going and getting, not for employing the best paralegal teams and spoiling the other guy's efforts.

  • So, Dr. Thom appears to be annoyed that someone made a bit of a mockery of the flawed system. What do you think has been going on in the U.S. ever since software algorithms and business processes could be ``patented''? Better develop a thicker skin, Dr. Thom. People are going to be laughing at your process.


    --

  • Don't be so bloody naive.

    Um...right. Only a naive person would actually try to make a difference, rather than sit around and complain to slashdot.

    Gee, I'm sure glad we have you cynics around to kick some sense into us. No reason to get up out of the chair and put forth some effort when the most effective means of protest is to whine to oneself. After all, trolling gets you karma points.

  • I just want to find the guy who patented leather.

  • Re:It might be nice... (Score:3)

    by Alexius ( 148791 ) <alexiusNO@SPAMnauticom.net> on Monday July 02, 2001 @04:22AM (#114887) Homepage
    I have every faith the editors read the article. Just because they read the article doesn't mean they understand the article.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
  • Mr Keogh said he patented the wheel to prove the innovation patent system was flawed because it did not need to be examined by the patent office, IP Australia. "The patent office would be required to issue a patent for anything," he said. "All they're doing is putting a rubber stamp on it."

    And this differs substantially from the current system?

    How?

    Since Australian Government has been rather clueless of late (sorry lads!), as far as Technology stuff goes, it seems to be par for the course.

    But I am glad to see that:

    "[...] he has no immediate plans to patent fire, crop rotation or other fundamental advances in civilisation"

    this reminds me of that classic article from the Onion:

    Secret of Fire Falls into Russian Hands [theonion.com]

    Now we got to worry about the Aussies as well.

    ;-)

    Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip

  • How original... (Score:3)

    by HiQ ( 159108 ) on Monday July 02, 2001 @04:24AM (#114892)
    Years and years age I read a SF short story about a guy who sucessfully patented the wheel, and thereby became rich, frightened all te big companies etc... I know that this story came from a bundle I think from the sixties, but I cannot remember who wrote it (Asimov, Clarke ???)

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Close