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."
The patent office - retarding development? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if I can get a patent on a 'for' loop and then declare all software that uses it to be violating my patent?
Fucking ridiculous.
Only in America.
prior art .... (Score:3, Interesting)
Testing the limits? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I had the money, I would patent the placement of pineapple on pizza in adjacent hexagonal cells to reduce juice runoff. I would have diagrams. It is novel, non-obvious, and I doubt there is prior art. Then we'd see if the folks in the USPTO are even reading these things.
As a (small) stockholder of MSFT, I have to wonder, don't they have better things to do?
Real People (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it remarkable that real people put their names to stuff like this.
Anybody here know someone personally with a silly corporate patent like this one? Do they believe in their "work"?
StephanComment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Let them patent it, and enforce the patent (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Talk to each other directly
2. Understand what the customer needs
3. Deliver software on time
Anyone with any brain at all sees immediately that all three assumptions are pure bovine excrement, but there's a large layer of well entrenched PM's at Microsoft, up to about 30% of each product team. 95% of these folks do absolutely nothing but (mis)communicate, hold meetings, "manage releases" (whatever the heck that means) and manage up. The remaining 5% are worth their weight in rare earth metals, but they're a tiny minority and they would be better used in a position of authority, like a Project Manager. Program manger has no reports and no authority over either development or test. Oftentimes they have no specialized education and no area expertise. They are randomly assigned to "areas" and told to "spec them out". Most of them even have to design UI, despite not having any usability or UI design experience (I'm sure that explains a lot). So they throw together a primitive spec, and the developer (who is typically an area expert) then spends a lot of time trying to politely explain how big a pile of flaming poo their spec is and why certain things need to be done differently to be even possible.
The worst part is, PM role is typically considered something of a fast track to management. So you end up with a lot of people who have not a slightest idea what they're talking about making strategic decisions.
So I say, let them have it. The rest of the world will just assume that their developers and testers have a brain. Seems to be a pretty safe assumption to make, most of the time.
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is clear the system is broken, but of all the comments I've ever read on slashdot (as infrequently as that may be) what is the solution? I mean you can't just throw out the thing all together. Having no patenting system would make the whole market far too volatile. If you could start over and rebuild the whole thing, what would you do?
My first thoughts where along the lines of something like:
- Company 1 comes up with idea and puts a "patent hold" on it. No one else can find out about it.
- Company 2 comes up with the same / similar idea and puts its own "patent hold" on it. Again, no one finds out.
- Company 1 finishes its product and takes it to market. Company 2 is informed.
- Companies 1 and 2 are given patents on the idea. No more companies may put a "hold" on the patent.
- Company 1 and 2 battle it out, creating competition, but with some market stability.
This way, no one company can sit on it. If they want to do something about what they've come up with, they can't just sit on it. They actually have to act on it, and to minimize their competition, they need to develop it as quickly as possible, effectively incentivising progress.It's even funnier (Score:5, Interesting)
You seem to assume that if they read it, they'd send you your pizza patent back and tell you to go fly a kite. That's actually incorrect. You'd probably just get the patent anyway. Heck, you could even patent the looks of a pizza.
A patent attorney actually patented his son's way to swing in an oval shape on a swing. The patent office originally didn't want to let it through. The father argued that although there are a couple of patents on swing designs, none is about how to swing on one. He got the patent.
IIRC, someone patented a cap with an american football goalpost on top, and a little ball on a spring to bob around between the posts. It's so stupid, it makes even a propeller beanie seem decent by comparison.
Speaking of american football, there's IIRC a patent on a crochet "replica" of a helmet.
A quick googling also produced this abomination of a hat [costumecraze.com] that claims to be patented.
Etc.
So basically not only you would probably get a patent on that pizza layout, it wouldn't even be the worst you could do with patents. By far. All legal and with them actually reading it.
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're serious, how about replacing the current invention standard for new patents by a jury of software programmers who are presented with the problem and asked to design a solution. If any of them gets close to any "invention" in the would-be patent, it's "obvious" and fails.
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes you can.
Having no patenting system would make the whole market far too volatile.
According to...? As demonstrated by...? Which would be bad because...?
The whole software industry has shown over the last 30 years that patents aren't at all necessary for development; in fact they've rather indicated patents slow down progress. The free software movement is in the middle of demonstrating you don't even need copyright to encourage development.
It's becoming fairly obvious that technological and innovative development is driven by need, necessity, competition and information accessibility. As a thought experiment; lock a smart innovator in a basement for ten years. What do you think he'll have invented when he comes out? Personally I'll bet most of the time it'll be something 9 years and six month out of date, independently invented five times in the first year and completely irrelevant to the world ten years later.
A single innovative mind, or a single development group simply has no chance to beat a million monkeys banging away on their keyboards, as long as the monkey build on each others advances.
If you could start over and rebuild the whole thing, what would you do?
Rebuild it from scratch with the actual purpose in mind. The single most usable feature about the patent system is disclosure. The single most damaging feature is the monopoly nature. So at the very least have those two in mind as fundamental aspects that cannot be compromised.
So to describe one possible example the same way you did:
* Inventor A comes up with an idea and registers it. Now anyone can read about it.
* Company B reads about the idea which solves a problem they're having. They start using it. They register their usage of the active patent and indicate the approximate savings/revenue/units sold derived from the patent.
* Patent office pays Inventor A appropriate remuneration
* Company C reads about the same idea, expands the idea, registers the expansion, and starts using it, again registering the approximate savings and revenue derived from the A part.
* Patent office pays Inventor A appropriate remuneration
* Company B reads about the expansion, incorporates the expansion, register their further use.
* Patent office pays Inventor A and Company C appropriate remuneration
* Etc.
There are several possible objections to this; paperwork and difficulty to assess revenue derived from a specific part. Compare with todays system; today you can either get a) a license from the patent holder which may very well be the same paperwork plus the cost or b) get sued. Which is a whole lot more cost and paperwork. And which may end up with you not being able to use the invention at all. Compared to the usual tax reports this would be a minor reporting issue.
Another objection would be the financing; first, the financing today may seem 'free', but the fact is it's exacted from the economy as a whole as a form of taxation on 'new' products, with licensing costs baked into the end price (in the best case. In the worst case we're paying by products not getting to the market at all). So we're paying in everything from high medical insurance costs to expensive environmentally improved technology.
Financing of a innovation incentive system could be done in any of a number of ways; personally I'd prefer one that didn't penalize things we might actually want rapidly adopted like more efficient medicines or more energy efficient technology. A flat sales tax on the appropriate industry segment might be appropriate. Initially it could even be tuned to approximate current expenditure on patent licenses in the field to ease transition.
Third would be the remuneration process; once you have an actual budget and an actual goal it becomes much easier to maximize the benefit of the funds available. Today nobody is responsible for the budget so we get the patent office granting p
Re:How telling, and how sad (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:1, Interesting)
For me, the crux of the matter of patents & math is as follows. Many mathematicians have leanings towards Platonism, the belief that the objects of study are "real" in some ideal sense. We would no sooner try to patent the discovery of a new truth about these objects than a biologist would try to patent the discovery of a new microorganism! Instead, as with the biologist, the flash of discovery brings only a desire to share our new wonder with the world. Are there those who disagree? Certainly. But even for those who do, the notion of patenting a theory or proof is unthinkable, because mathematics, more than any other science, is about "standing on the shoulders of Giants" (Newton). No one's math exists in a vacuum, and attempting to isolate a theory from future research would only ensure its rapid death from disuse.