Microsoft Seeks Patent On Brain-Based Development 173
theodp writes "With its just-published patent application for Developing Software Components Based on Brain Lateralization, Microsoft provides yet another example of just how broken the patent system is. Microsoft argues that its 'invention' of having a Program Manager act as an arbitrator/communicator between a group of right-brained software users and left-brained software developers mimics 'the way that the brain communicates between its two distinct hemispheres.' One of the 'inventors' is Ray Ozzie's Technical Strategist. If granted, the patent could be used to exclude others from making, using, or selling the 'invention' for 17 years."
Re:You say that as if it's a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, patenting something based on the brain is ridiculous. Might as well patent "bi pedal motion", sue everyone in the world and get it over with.
Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
2) The poster doesn't even know how long patents last, let alone anything relating to what is *actually* wrong with the patent system.
Just my two eurocents (since they hold their value better).
Re:Ugh (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not hardly. The madness is spreading.
Wait a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just, excuse the expression, patently absurd.
Re:Testing the limits? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm patenting the deliberate creation of shyte s/w (Score:3, Insightful)
By creating bolloxed, over-complex software applications, interfaces, frameworks, and modules, the "wrong-minded" "development organization" thus enables an entire business
eco-system engaged in the production of "for dummies" manuals, malware detection and security services, and IT support, which is needed to arbitrate between the shyte software, and the "right-brained" users.
Re:On the other hand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't they implied on more than one occasion that Linux is violating X patents?
That sure doesn't sound like a victim...
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:1, Insightful)
Patents on non obvious algorithms and Math are very valid and do give a great deal of advantage (plus it keeps a line of jobs for the true geeks). Patents on simple concepts however should be forbidden (not just for software)
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:4, Insightful)
"True geeks" are interested in ideas for their own sake; money---although a certain amount is necessary for survival, and a bit more is desirable for comfort & security---is a secondary concern. And it's obvious you know absolutely nothing about mathematical culture if you would seriously consider the notion of patenting a theory or its proof; mathematicians, perhaps more than anyone else, understand the wisdom of Ben Franklin's words: "As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously."
+3 Insightful? WTF?
Re:You say that as if it's a bad thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand the world.
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:3, Insightful)
A book (which is what the first copyright systems covered) is not very useful for the author unless it is published.
Inventions on the other hand can (in many cases) be useful even if kept secret. This is why patents were invented - and why publishing is part of the patenting process.
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every mathemathical truth is obvious, since it follows from the postulates. And every algorithm is obvious in hindsight.
Simple to whom ? The patent examiner, who gets to read the obfuscated patent claim ?
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:3, Insightful)
All of these algorithms were arguably non-obvious at the time.
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You say that as if it's a bad thing (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly how the patent system is broken. Patents on physical inventions leave room for competitors to invent their own version of the item, although the new inventor must create their own implementation that is sufficiently different. Patents on ideas and many business processes, especially this patent, are ridiculous. How can you patent a way of coming up with what software to right?
And how exactly is this different from SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) in the software world? I mean, you have one system that processes some set of data and then, after making it into a new pre-defined data structure (e.g. XML), it pushes it into another system which performs some other method of processing on it and then can return the results into a final service that takes that data and persists the information in a database.
The arbitrator/communicator element is essentially the primary orchestration element in SOA. The object/component driven element is essentially the portion that passes datastructures (XML) between systems. The situation/scenario driven element is just like the SOA as a whole when using choreography over orchestration.
Also, as other people have mentioned in other posts, it does feel like this is a patent on having levels of management. This is especially like the feel of a Graphics/PrePress shop where the salespeople interact with the clients, pass on job tickets to the manager of the prepress department who then checks over the tickets and distributes work to the worker bees.
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:4, Insightful)
companies go and spend lots of money to research and develop something, then the open source community goes and takes the best of it, re-codes and gives it away for free
You seem to think this is a trivial process. Trust me, it's not.
Re:How telling, and how sad (Score:4, Insightful)
It's offtopic, but I actually agree fully... I'd love to see Slashdot's moderation system go to much higher numbers, and a few more mod points (but not too many more) be given out. e.g. Go to 15 instead of 5 as a maximum, and give out roughly twice as many mod points as currently. That way, each individual act of moderation has about 1/3 the value that it used to, but more people are given a "voice" in valuing posts.
It would also allow for finer grained modifiers - I currently have Friends and Fans at +1, but under the system I propose here, I'd put fans at +1 and friends at +3.
The result could be plotted on a 3D graph attached to each comment.
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't care what Ben Franklin thought, despite the fact that he was Invention Personified, perhaps a more modern inventor's opinion would show you the light. I quote Donald Knuth, greatest living computer scientist: Or, since your ignorance of mathematics leads me to believe that you won't value Prof. Knuth's opinion, perhaps these words from Doom/Quake uber-hacker John Carmack will be more convincing: Do you notice a trend? It seems to me that the only pro-patent people, other than lawyers, are those so small that they'd scramble to accrue continual profit from the mere one or two things they'll accomplish in a lifetime (other than buying a house and breeding). Much easier to sit on your ass and collect royalities while simultaneously discouraging innovation, than to continue working for the benefit of the world those munchkins will inherit one day, eh?
Oh, we idealists! When will we get over our silly notions that life could be more than eating, shitting, fucking, dying, and collecting shiny coins?