IBM Patents Optimization 156
jamie(really) writes "IBM appears to want to patent optimizing programs by trial and error, which in the history of programming has, of course, never been done. Certainly, all my optimizations have been the result of good planning. Well done IBM for coming up with this clever idea. What is claimed is: 'A method for developing a computer program product, the method comprising:
evaluating one or more refactoring actions to determine a performance attribute;
associating the performance attribute with a refactoring action used in computer code; and
undoing the refactoring action of the computer code based on the performance attribute.
The method of claim 1 wherein the undoing refactoring is performed when the performance attribute indicates a negative performance effect of the computer code.'"
Government is at fault (Score:1, Insightful)
The reason companies apply for obvious and trivial patents is because they know that government will grant them. As long as government continues to grant obvious and trivial patents, it is guaranteed that companies will apply for them, and that litigation itself will continue to be a profitable business model.
The law is exploited because the law is designed to be exploitable.
Slashdot idiot to non-idiot ratio (Score:1, Insightful)
has severly increased in the last few years, making it nearly unreadable.
The post is written by an illiterate (did anyone even look at the patent?) causing the usual slashtards to complain about things they clearly do not understand.
The patent has nothing to do with what the poster claimed. The patent roughly does this: people refactor code to make it more readable or easier to modify. This sometimes has the effect of making the code perform worse. The patent is about tracking the refactoring at some abstract level, and undoing it *at compile time* to gain both the benefits of the refactoring readability and the performance before the refactoring.
This is a good idea. Obvious after the fact, but novel, useful, and not at all about "IBM appears to want to patent optimizing programs by trial and error". If they've implemented it (reducing it to practice) that that would be impressive and innovative, which is what patents were designed for.
Why has Slashdot has become swamped with morons and illiterate whiners? Does anyone know of a place this is not the case where intelligent adults can converse about topics without people too lazy to read swamping any useful comments?
Re:lolwut? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bilski is not going to make all methods unpatentable. 35 USC 101 states that processes (i.e., methods) are a permitted statutory class of invention for the purposes of obtaining a patent. The key is whether certain types of methods fall under the previously delineated judicial exceptions (abstract ideas, natural phenomena, or laws of nature) to the four statutory classes of invention that 35 USC 101 describes (processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter). Specifically, the USPTO and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit say that Bilski's claimed invention is nothing more than an abstract idea with tenuous, if any, ties to a particular application of the idea.
If you're expecting an earth-shattering kaboom when SCOTUS releases their opinion in Bilski, prepare to be disappointed. It's unlikely to have a huge impact on patents for computer-based methods, although few people actually think that Bilski is going to come away from this with a patent in hand.
Irony (Score:3, Insightful)
Typical response from a child. When told you should educate yourself about what you're trying to attack
And:
you're going to have to lose the whiny bitch attitude before you'll have any chance
Just saying.
Re:Here's an idea: (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad the "only thing missing" is the crux of the patent; so when you said "I do indeed" you meant "No, I don't".
You mention that using your toolset the developer can just revert the change. Trouble is, once that's done the user-readable code no longer benefits from the cleaner, refactored version; the developer has to choose to give up that benefit to get the better performance. The patent discusses a scenario where you can get the best of both worlds; it doesn't revert the change in the user-readable code as you seem to think it does. (It doesn't, in short, "stomp all over the developer's work".) Instead, it presents the code to the compiler as though the refactoring weren't done.
Anyway, that is what sets your usage pattern of existing tools apart from the process described in the patent.