A Defense of Process Patents 249
An anonymous reader writes "In light of the ruling against the University of California patent trolls seeking to claim ownership of the 'Interactive Web,' founding attorney of Beacon Hill Law Joe Stanganelli, has written an article defending process patents. In it, he refers to technology pundits as 'bizarro' and argues that it's a misconception that patents stifle innovation. As he writes, 'What I do not understand is — had the jury determined Eolas's patents valid — why it would be A-OK for dozens of already megarich corporations to get even richer adopting technology they did not invent or have legal permission to use, but somehow immoral for the actual creators of the technology to likewise profit[?]"" I am not a patent lawyer, but I doubt I'm the only one who thinks it's possible to support a patent on an industrial potash processing technique, but not software patents — or at least to distinguish them from each other.
Oh, the jury strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
What I do not understand is — had the jury determined Eolas's patents valid [...]
Let's be blunt: that makes the jury look stupid, not the patent somehow ethically OK. The patent was nothing new, there was plenty of prior art. They got lucky with a silly examiner, that's all.
Re: (Score:3)
The patent was nothing new, there was plenty of prior art. They got lucky with a silly examiner, that's all.
There's that, and then there's the bit that the whole patent system is a gov't granted monopoly hack intended to skew the workings of the free market. In programmer terms, it's as bad as a goto. There are lots of ways to do what that intends to do without doing it in such an ugly way.
Plenty of vibrant industries don't rely on the patent system at all (eg. the fashion industry). The patent system enriches lawyers, full stop. It doesn't "promote the sciences and useful arts" at all, and seeing how caprici
Re:Oh, the jury strawman (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, I agree with your sentiment. Patents are supposed to provide a benefit by allowing companies to use inventions which would otherwise be secret. Nowadays, patents are granted for "obvious" things and provide a minefield whereby anyone trying to invent something inevitably infringes someone's patent and becomes liable even though they may not have seen the original patent.
Re:Oh, the jury strawman (Score:5, Informative)
Huh? Both the U.S. patent and the copyright systems are in existence due to the "promotion" clause in the U.S. Constitution. They have the same reason for existence (or lack thereof), they just cover different aspects of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Its obvious (Score:2, Informative)
Patents are not supposed to be "obivious to someone skilled in the art".
Re:Its obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but this means that obviousness is a judgement call by a skilled practitioner. Such a purely subjective metric is something lawyers will NEVER accept ... because it shows just how stupid patents really are when you need a jury of highly paid engineers to even be able to judge the validity of a patent. Every lawyer devised test for obviousness has boiled down to prior art, they will not stop trying to redefine the word obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
Such as a subjective metric can be made rigorous in the process of patent examination. How many silly patents would be tossed off once a couple guys had the chance of doing a clean room implementation given three days?
That would reduce the number of patents, making the application a lil costlier. Bad for the applicant, good for the society. We don't need 2 million patents, we need 200 of them that are useful and that can be reimplemented once the terms expire. That does not happen now, because patents are j
Patents on math (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Patents on math (Score:4, Insightful)
Software isn't just math. If you claim that software is just math, then all engineering is just math. So, all products that require engineering to produce are simply math. Next, all design and architecture is just math, because actually implementing it is strictly an engineering (e.g. math) problem. It's an absurd claim based upon a faulty premise.
Re:Patents on math (Score:5, Insightful)
Software isn't just math
Oh yeah?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-turing_thesis [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKI_calculus [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskell_(programming_language) [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolog [wikipedia.org]
If you claim that software is just math, then all engineering is just math
No, claiming software is math is like claiming that engineering designs are math. The difference is that engineering designs are not useful until a physical system is built based on those designs, while software is useful regardless of how it is implemented. You cannot use the description of a bridge to drive your car over a body of water; you can use a description of a computer program to compute whatever the program computes. A computer program is purely abstract, like a number (in fact, computer programs can be represented as numbers, and can be used even when given in that representation), and computer programs operate on purely abstract things, and output purely abstract things. A computer program cannot build a car, it can only be used to compute how some specialized hardware can build a car.
If you are curious about the mathematical nature of software, I recommend reading any number of theory of computation texts; Sipser's book is widely used in CS curricula, but Kozen's book is also a good illustration. You might also want to read a book about lambda calculus / combinator logic if you are interested in formal ways of describing computer programs.
As I have said elsewhere, I draw the line at abstraction. Software is absolutely abstract; bridges, buildings, microchips, chemical processes, etc. all have to be physically realized in some way.
Some process patents can be valid (Score:3)
Say, someone discovers a way to convert scrap metal to gold
That person should be allowed to have a patent on it
But someone shouldnt be given a patent for facilitating video conferencing by piping images from a camera to the local PC and then over a network to the remote PC
Re: (Score:2)
Difficult? Your example is clearly invalid due to rior art.
Re:Some process patents can be valid (Score:4)
Because combining those pre-existing technologies in that way is obvious, and if nobody had ever done it until x years ago, it's only because the need didn't arise until then.
Re: (Score:2)
Say, someone discovers a way to convert scrap metal to gold That person should be allowed to have a patent on it
Unless they're converting scrap gold into gold... which is about the level of sillyness we're seeing with software-related patents.
Patents should be a good thing. The problem seems to be technical ignorance and lack of independence in the awarding process.
Re: (Score:3)
Say, someone discovers a way to convert scrap metal to gold.
That person should be allowed to have a patent on it.
i) Why?
ii) [Tangentially] If someone can convert scrap metal to gold, what the hell does he need a patent for? He's already in a better position than King Midas.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Some process patents can be valid (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that is correct. What's the issue? A number of different programmers can come up with as many solutions to your coding example as there are programmers. A patent should not cover every method of catching a mouse. It should only cover a specific method; otherwise nobody would be able to get rich building a better mousetrap (to use the old saw). So if the person wanted to get very specific on how to send your video signal that would be what is needed for a fair patent. And I'm talking down to the code level because that is where the differences are. But that is not needed because copyright already covers that. And besides code is just a form of algorithm which I don't believe is patentable. Process patents are too vague/non-specific to be a fair patent.
Imagine if the criteria for process patents made it into main stream industry: they would prevent a person from building the proverbial better mousetrap: I patent a mechanical technique for capturing and/or killing a mouse when it triggers a sensor which can be mechanical or electronic... now no-one can patent a better one because that is so vague it covers it all. In your example, a programmer might be able to figure out a faster way to send the video by some sort of new compression technology algorithm he or she develops, but wouldn't be able to implement it because the over all process is patented already. I don't believe this was the intent of patents when they were first implemented, nor do I think it is a fair or just way to implement them now.
Maybe this is what has happened since we allowed business school types to somehow convince so many that the process is more important than the work or output. Or maybe it is because we allowed the 'Big Thinkers' into the picture; those that like to spout shit but never do anything, and still feel like they are owed a bundle (you know, like Wall Street bankers, lawyers, patent trolls, most executives, the modern bonus eating CEO...). But that is another story.
Patents should promote innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents exist solely to promote innovation. Or, more specifically, "science and the useful arts". There is plenty of evidence that traditional industrial patents do exactly that. There is very little evidence that software patents do so, and plenty of evidence that they stifle innovation.
This isn't about morals. It's about asking what bargain society wants to make with innovators, in order to promote innovation. The software patent bargain is helping neither society at large nor innovators. Making sure that the lawyers like it is not one of the goals here.
Re: (Score:3)
Moreover, "process" patents are almost always about "using X (that someone else invented) do Y (which X was designed to do)". If you invent the screwdriver, should I really be allowed to patent of using your screwdriver to turn screws?
Re:Patents should promote innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
Somewhere along the line, though, we got industrial processes confused with mathem^H^H^H^H^H software.
Re: (Score:3)
processes that are not truly mechanical -- for example, processes involving complicated chemistry. That is fine, it is certainly in the spirit of the patent system
I'm not saying I like software patents, but I fail to see how a process that involves complicated chemistry is any less "math" than software.
It seems that they're both simply algorithms. One deals with how you control chemicals, the other with how you control electrons.
I guess all I'm really asking is how you can justify process patents, but not software patents? Are you saying that software is not a process?
Re:Patents should promote innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I draw the line at abstraction -- something which is completely abstract should be beyond the reach of the patent system
Fine, but I would argue that software processes are no more abstract than chemical processes. Again, one deals with performing certain actions on chemicals in a certain way, while the other deals with performing certain actions on electrons in a certain way. If software is math, then so is a chemical process.
Software controls how matter should be controlled, just as a chemical process does. Just because that matter is much smaller doesn't change the fact that something physical is actually occurring.
So
Re: (Score:3)
Additionally, what you are interested in with software is not the electrons; you do not save electrons somewhere to reuse them later. The results of a computation are just as useful if they are printed, output as punche
Re:Patents should promote innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
If the software patent system worked that way, I don't think people would have a problem with it. As it is constructed now, though, software patents are so broad that they are purely conceptual. This is akin to patenting using chemistry to perform a specific task, instead of on specific chemical process. When I look at a software patent, I use 4 tests to determine if I believe it should have been granted.
1) Does it fulfill its purpose of contributing to the useful arts and sciences?
test: Can an expert in the field recreate their EXACT process or invention by using nothing more than the patent documents? Most software patents fail here because they do not actually cover a fixed number of implementations, but rather all possible implementations.
2) Is it a patent on a specific instance or on an idea or concept?
test: Using the idea or concept demonstrated by the patent, is it possible to create another non-infringing implementation? If not, then it is a patent on the concept itself and not an implementation. Note: if there is more than one idea or concept being demonstrated, use the narrowest one.
3) Is it obvious?
4) Does it have prior-art?
Let me give you two examples:
1) Apple's slide to unlock patent. 1) Would an expert programmer be able to implement Apple's patent with no other information than what is in the patent documents? The patent is very specific on what is going on and so I would say it is a good example of a patent that passes this test. 2) Is is possible to unlock a device using physical contact to a touchscreen without violating Apple's patent? This one is difficult. Apple's patent covers any user interaction with a widget and continuous movement from on place on the screen to another for the purposes of unlocking the device. That is pretty broad, although if the graphical widget did not move across the screen, but instead changed colors, prompting you to drag your finger to another spot on the screen to unlock, I think it would be safely clear of Apples patent. So, Apple's patent probably clears this test. 3) Is it obvious? This is where Apple's patent fails in my mind. Using the movement of widgets to change state is not new, Apple's patent is a logical and obvious extension of it. 4) Is there prior art? In striking down this patent in the Netherlands last year, the Dutch court offered the2004 Neonode N1m as prior art.
2) Microsoft "Virtual Entertainment" patent. 1) Microsoft fails right out of the gate on this one. There are no specs detailing how this would work. If I asked 100 experts to implement this patent, I would probably get 100 different implementations.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying I like software patents, but I fail to see how a process that involves complicated chemistry is any less "math" than software.
Chemistry is not math. Chemistry is described by math. There is no set of equations or software program that will actually cause crude oil to become gasoline.
It seems that they're both simply algorithms. One deals with how you control chemicals, the other with how you control electrons.
By this logic you can patent a work of fiction as a process of arranging letters on a printing press plate.
The problem is that software is purely abstract. Nothing stops you from having a power source that can supply five times as much energy as the sun, or a gear with a hundred million teeth, or a totally frictionless surface. There is nothing useful
Re: (Score:3)
Why is patenting encryption by modular exponentiation absurd?
There is no such thing as "encryption by modular exponentiation" as distinct from "modular exponentiation." They are the same piece of code. You don't see why patenting "(x^y) (mod z)" is absurd? Start with "it's in the prior art."
I had no idea modular exponentiation could be applied to encryption. If nobody else either had noticed this - then why should we not allow somebody to protect their invention?
Well, we can start with "somebody else had noticed this." Clifford Cocks at GCHQ (UK intelligence) was the first to discover the relationship in 1973.
But never mind that. You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why should we set back the field of public key cryptography
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The obviousness criteria should be a lot more broadly applied than it currently is. For one, while copyrights allow for similar or identical expressions developed in parallel, patents do not. If you realize that someone can file their taxes * on the internet *, and I realize that someone can file their taxes * on the internet *, it's a first-to-file-take-all situation. If we allowed for independent / clean room developments, the water might be a bit murkier but at least the indefensible patents wouldn't
Re: (Score:3)
Patents are intended to protect inventions. A device that implements a business method should be patentable, but a process using it shouldn't. Otherwise you'd end up with a patent on using RFID for inventory control, et cetera.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read evidence that industrial patents do not promote innovation, but hinder it instead. The most effective tools for profiting from either a product or a process are secrecy, complementary manufacturing, and market lead time. (Boldrin & Levine, [2008], "Against Intellectual Monopoly")
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents exist solely to promote innovation. Or, more specifically, "science and the useful arts". There is plenty of evidence that traditional industrial patents do exactly that.
Cite?
Re: (Score:3)
There is very little evidence that software patents do so
I work in a department which files about 50 patents/year. We get a lot of pressure to do so, I've filed some myself, too.
The curious thing is: we don't read patents unless we are checking for prior art. I have the distinct impression that we are not unusual in this respect - from an engineers point of view, patents are write-only. They can't promote innovation, because engineers don't hear about them.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because 'willful' infringement of a patent carries a legal penalty of triple damages. This creates a perverse incentive for nobody to ever do a patent search with regard to software.
Crypto Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Mathematics is not supposed to be patentable, yet somehow these crypto patents -- which are really just patents on algebra -- have been granted, and our national security is threatened by it (the NSA has licensed some ECC patents for use in certain security sensitive contexts, but that is not even close to what we need). That anyone could defend that situation is mind boggling to me.
Re:Crypto Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone who profits from the situation, who can ignore all the societal implications of the actual patents, could defend it quite well. Like, say, a patent lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
But what is your take on patenting software in general? What is the difference between an algorithm and an industrial process? Aren't they both "recipes"? If so, should both be patentable? or neither?
Following from that, why is patenting beneficial for industrial processes but not for software?
I'm not really advocating patents nor renouncing them, just trying to get a better idea.
Re:Crypto Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the difference between an algorithm and an industrial process? Aren't they both "recipes"? If so, should both be patentable? or neither?
Neither. You should be able to copyright the implementation of an algorithm. But anyone who goes back to the first principles and derives their own implementation should be free to do so.
With industrial processes, it would be similar. You can't just copy some companies process documentation and build your own production line. But its that misappropriation which should be the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
The dividing line is the abstract nature of software, which is itself just an extension of the abstract nature of
Re: (Score:3)
However, there are some benefits to close source operating systems, especially to business who require 24x7x365 support, enterprise management tools, and feature/UI stability
I agree that trivial software processes should not be patentable, but when you put a series of trivial processes together to create an OS, a game, or an application, these should be patentable as they are non-obvious, non-trivial, and rises to the level of creation.
So by putting lots and lots of abstract things together, you somehow wind up with something that is not abstract? I said that I draw the line at abstract: something which operates only on abstract concepts should not be patentable no matter how complicated it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you confusing patents with copyright? An OS can't simply be copied because it's copyrighted. There's no need for patents.
LOL (Score:3)
He said "actual creators".
Explaining software patents to the patent lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you.
Have you ever used that phrase in a contract that you charged a client money for? It (or some minor variation) appears in license agreements from Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and Sony. And I'm pretty sure they don't all use the same lawyer. *I* would never have come up with that phrasing, but perhaps it's obvious to you, someone skilled in the art of contract law. Well, same thing for us software engineers - most of the software patents we see, and nearly all of them in the particular area of software that we specialize - are equally obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you.
Pedantic, but I've always wondered why that phrase was necessary. In a contract with a severance clause (like every EULA ever), if the exclusion isn't legal, it just gets severed from the contract and the rest remains in full force. So why specifically mention it?
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but the "all or nothing" part was explained to me in a college law class.
Re: (Score:2)
Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you.
Pedantic, but I've always wondered why that phrase was necessary. In a contract with a severance clause (like every EULA ever), if the exclusion isn't legal, it just gets severed from the contract and the rest remains in full force. So why specifically mention it?
Two possible reasons:
1. Even with severability, there is the question of how much of the contract remains in force. This clause tries to define the portion of the contract that will be severed.
2. Even with a severance clause, you may not have a severable contract. The judge may just decide it's not severable: a contract is between two people, it has no
power to tell the courts what legal reasoning they must apply in a dispute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The added bonus is that in the case of software patents (and this analogy) it doesn't even matter if you some up with a better, more readable, more concise way to state this, you're still infringing. Innovation indeed.
Throw it out of the window (Score:2)
Etymological series: Throw it out of the window > Defenetre > Defence
Hence: Throw the process patents out of the window.
Read the comments on TFA - hilarious (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, since no-one read TFA, let alone TFA's comments:
TFAuthor clarifies his position:
>Traditionally, the "patent troll" (or "[whatever-kind-of-IP] troll") term has been reserved for companies that buy underenforced IP and then make money by litigating it. FWIW, I have little inherent problem with this "trolling" act either because it's simply investing in an asset (the particular IP) that is obviously well in demand. The original creator wins by being able to realize a purchase price for his creation without having to go through the trouble of managing the IP, and the investor wins through selling licenses and/or getting judgments and/or settlements on violations. In practice, of course, there have been legal system abuses, but that should not speak to the inherent practice.
In other words, there's no problem with leaving a bunch of cookies on a table, then selling the rights to cookies to a debt collector, who shakes down everyone who ate one for a fair price (determined through a process of valuing their kneecaps).
Re: (Score:2)
The summary contains a HUGE oversight.
why it would be A-OK for dozens of already megarich corporations to get even richer adopting technology they did not invent
Just because someone else invented something before you does NOT mean you did not ALSO invent it. His reasoning only makes sense if everyone already knew it had been inv
Re: (Score:2)
Why is there always SOMEONE here who sees a good analogy and thinks they can make it better - and in so doing turns it into a convoluted mess?
Person A: X is like Y when Z.
Person B: No, actually, X is like A when Y but also Z.
(And yes, I fully expect- in keeping with slashdot tradition - sometime to pipe up and tell me about Person C who thinks X is like B when A but not Y and also Z but not Z1. )
Re: (Score:2)
OK, since no-one read TFA, let alone TFA's comments:
Guilty. :-(
In other words, there's no problem with leaving a bunch of cookies on a table, then selling the rights to cookies to a debt collector, who shakes down everyone who ate one for a fair price (determined through a process of valuing their kneecaps).
There are a lot of parallels that can be drawn between the way gov't works (patent system) and how the mafia works (protection rackets). It's always surprised me that people think they are entirely unrelated processes. It all comes down to how good/believable is your PR.
Sorry,but I'm with him. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Patent trolls don't make a first copy. They sketch out a vague diagram and then say that anyone doom what they diagramed needs to pay.
I would love to see software patent suits require a demo of functioning software. But I have a suspicion that that woul make it too easy for juries to say "these aren't the same things."
Heck if I had my way anyone entering a courtroom for a software parent suit without being able to present a working software example of their parent should be shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Then people should be paid to refine and organise potash and bring it to the market, just like people should be paid to refine and organise existing algorithms and adapt them to a specific customer's needs.
Patents prevent people from doing that. The person who digs up potash from the ground can be sued if he does it in a way that someone else thought of first, and the programmer who applies algorithms can be sued if someone else came up with the same algorithm first. Both are prevented from profiting from t
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I know the old saw that you can make infinite copies of a digital file, but that ignores how expensive it can be to produce the first copy. We need to find a good way of protecting the folks who invest in that first copy. If that means patents, I think that's fine.
ITYM copyrights, not patents.
I think I'm okay with Paul McCartney and his designated distribution arm being the only ones legally allowed to sell copies of Wings' music, because that (in theory) ensures he gets his royalty.
I'm not okay with Apple suing restaurants in Germany for using the generic word "apple" in their name. That's just lawyers abusing the system for no reason other than their greed.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_formula [wikipedia.org]
What differentiates a software patent from a math patent? Well, nothing, as it turns out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-turing_thesis [wikipedia.org]
Moreover, software patents have caused substantial harm to the state of computer security:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2000/09/38635 [wired.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECC_patents [wikipedia.org]
We need to find a good way of protecting the folks who invest in that first copy. If that means patents, I think that's fine.
Let's try avoid reliance on this:
https://en.wikipedia. [wikipedia.org]
Invisible to Mr Stanganelli (Score:2)
The three technologies he cites, online video, image rotation, and search bar autocomplete, were all well in use long before the so-called "inventors" "invented" them, so I cannot but agree with the judgement that the patent is invalid.
It sounds as if Mr Stanganelli is simply suffer
Software Patents Stifle Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
it's a misconception that patents stifle innovation
The problem with software patents is that the legal standard of patent quality is too low. Something can be patented if it is novel and not obvious. I can write something that is novel and not obvious in an afternoon.
If I patent my afternoon's work, that doesn't enable me to sell it. So patents don't help me the innovate. On the other hand if tens of thousands of other people patent various things I could do in an afternoon, I am now legally obligated to respect all those patents, never doing any of those things unless I first negotiate a license with them. And I can get sued into bankruptcy if I make a mistake. And so the cost of avoiding infringing on low quality patents gets added to the cost of software development.
The patent system provides an incentive to be a software patent troll. It does not provide an incentive to develop software for people to use.
First to invent (Score:2)
Any discussion about patents must start by stating the fact that most patent infringements occur when its idea is reinvented, not stolen. So when you say that patents benefit the inventor, you must clarify that each patent only benefits one inventor, who was the first to register a particular idea. Thus we can rephrase the patent argument as: should people be rewarded for being the first to think of something?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Drugs.
There's a lot of good information in process patents for the manufacture of pharmaceutical compounds which will ultimately see wider use in other products. Process chemists and engineers put an enormous amount of labour into devising the best way to carry out a particular chemical reaction, and those reaction conditions are described in the patent for the production of a given drug molecule. Such information is then incredibly useful for others working towards making similar molecules (or completely different molecules, but using the same transformation), be they other companies, academics, or students.
1) It's not just the world of pharmaceuticals. Look around you. Pretty much every material you see is the product of a ton of chemical engineering of some form or another, from polymer science to metallurgy. It's all complicated, and the work that goes into coming up with a patentable way to make your lightbulb last longer dwarfs the work going into things in the software patent world. But...
2) Patents on these processes or combinations of chemical properties are unbelievably vague. Let's say you find
Re: (Score:3)
1) The post to which I was referring asked to name "one product", and so I did just that.
2) I've read (and continue to read) a lot of patent literature. I appreciate that the reality is that a patent proprietor (or their attorney) will necessarily draft the description to contain the minimum possible amount of information required to meet the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure. However, the "central idea" must necessarily be elucidated in sufficient detail for the ordinary skilled person to work the invention (so "if you really know the science behind it" is exactly the point; they're not written to be understandable by the lay person). It only gets more obscure around the periphery, and as patents are legal documents there is a certain art to reading them to extract the information you require.
Anyway, this isn't a purely hypothetical argument. I referred to the patent literature more than once when working towards my doctorate in organic chemistry, and obtained very useful information from such sources more than once. Information which wasn't available elsewhere. A patent would never have been my first choice of reference material, because journal articles don't have that disclosure/trade secret tension which is inherent in a patent, but the patent literature was far from uselessly obfuscated.
Maybe I'm jaded by my current field. In the 5000 patents I read last quarter, something actually useful related to the central idea was decipherable in maybe 50-100, and that usually involved a team of 3 PhD experts in the topic working together for at least 10 minutes to sort the wheat from the chaff.
All patents and copyrights harm progress, economy (Score:3)
All patents and copyrights cause harm to the economy and to progress, it is absolutely wrong to have government protect anybody's business model, regardless of what it is, and this includes special subsidy of the enforcement, court and penal systems.
Re: (Score:2)
No patents please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine this story: University scientists, working diligently in their lab, invent something world-changing. Several big corporations steal the invention for themselves, making billions of dollars in profits. The scientists receive nothing.
You don't have to be a professional folklorist or ethicist to conclude that the scientists are the good guys and the corporations are the bad guys.
Imagine this;
Business has a problem.
They hire a software engineer to solve that problem.
The software engineer, working entirely on their own, writes a piece of software that solves that problem.
Business implements the software.
Patent holder sues business because software violates holder's patent.
It might take a professional folklorist or ethicist to determine who's the bad guy in that situation.
Now imagine a third scenario;
Business has a problem.
They hire a software engineer to solve that problem.
The software engineer, working entirely on their own, writes a piece of software that solves that problem.
Business asks if the software violates any patents.
No one has any idea.
Even a folklorist or ethicist won't help you resolve the patent issue in that third scenario.
And that's the real problem with software patents.
It's not business knowingly using an invention and not paying for it's development.
It's not business being forced to pay for something they didn't use.
No, the problem is not knowing.
Software engineers are notorious for reinventing the wheel.
We often don't look for existing solutions because it's easier to reinvent them than to find them.
I don't believe anyone in the current lawsuit read Eolas's patent and said "nice idea, it's mine now."
But they did have to go to court over it.
Only a lawyer would think that's a good thing.
Senator Ben Cardin's take on patents (Score:2)
At a town hall meeting hosted by Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md), I stood up and complained that the patent system, which is supposed to help software developers, is instead a sword over our heads. I then gave two examples of recent ridiculous patents.
He replied that he is ( or was ) on the Commerce Committee and is aware of the problem. After the obligatory talk on the need to protect intellectual property he showed an awareness and sympathy to the issue. His last line was that when you want to use "1+ 1 = 2"
Re: (Score:2)
Tell him programming is just a form of math-- it is quite likely any CS professor he asks that will confirm that CS is mathematical-- since they still hold that math can't be patented.
Me, I find it odd that simple math turned into a million lines of extremely specific steps is patented broadly while some difficult solution that took 100s of years to discover that is only a few lines and is already very broad (like the currently patents given) can not be patented. Either both or neither can be.
Re: (Score:2)
it is quite likely any CS professor he asks that will confirm that CS is mathematical
Only theoreticians would say that; there are plenty of CS professors who view software development as a kind of engineering work, and who would say that software is related to math in the same way that circuits are -- mathematical foundations, but with something more. You and I both disagree, but unfortunately the US government tends to favor any argument that presents opportunities for businesses to open new revenue streams (regardless of the cost to society).
The fundamental problem with patents... (Score:2)
'What I do not understand is — had the jury determined Eolas's patents valid — why it would be A-OK for dozens of already megarich corporations to get even richer adopting technology they did not invent ..."
The fundamental problem with this guy's argument, and with patents in general, is that aforementioned megarich corporations DID invent this technology... regardless of whether the Eolas patent was valid by today's standards of what is patentable or not, Google, Yahoo and others sure as hell D
Patent implementations, not algorithms (Score:2)
The solution is simple. Only allow the patenting of IMPLEMENTATIONS, not ALGORITHMS.
Algorithms are DISCOVERED, not invented. They have always existed, the techniques by which computing gets done.
Can you imagine the shitload of trouble we'd all be in if some of the authors of the great programming texts and guides had PATENTED their algorithms?
*shudder*
Re: (Score:3)
Algorithms are DISCOVERED, not invented.
Er, no.
X, but with computers/internet/iWindows/databases (Score:2)
I'm particularly upset about the rise of "X, but with computers/internet/iWindows" patents.
Clearly, if something is done on paper, it is possible to do the same digitally, where is the innovation in implementing it?
Did they really invent something? (Score:3)
Please show me where these "scientists" actually invented something. Online video? Ever hear of something called TV. Image rotation? Really, isn't that just an application of a matrix transformation. Search bar autocomplete? Isn't that just navigating some kind of tree like data structure and displaying the results. I just can't see the non-trivial innovation in these examples, maybe if I had no clue about math or computers, sure, but there is nothing here remotely outside the norm.
Maybe we need to rethink who we are labeling "scientists" in this day and age. Seems our standards are pretty low.
It's not always about immediate profit, asshole (Score:5, Interesting)
The obvious answer is it simply didn't occur to us, but even if it had, I very much doubly we would have done it. Our primary purpose was to change the capabilities of existing and future email systems in a fundamental way. (A secondary purpose for me at least was to drive a stake through the heart of X.400 - having just done an implementation of that mess, I was deeply worried that its very limited multimedia capabilities would drive its deployment in place of the much simpler Internet email protocols, and the entire world would have been much worse off had that happened.)
But neither of those goals could possibly have been met by patented technology. To be successful we needed as many implementers to adopt the technology as soon as possible, and a patent would have prevented that. (One of the reasons MIME is a bit ugly in places is because we believed that being able to implement and deploy it on top of existing infrastructure trumped design niceties.)
And while I can't speak for Nathaniel or Keith, it was certainly possible for me to profit from our work without a patent. But I did it the old fashioned way - by building a good implementation and selling it.
Of course there are situations where patents make sense, like to protect small inventors who come up manufacturing process or whatever. But there are lots of cases where they don't, and right now things are canted much too much towards patenting everything, even in cases where it actively stifles innovation and progress.
Notice the techniques of propaganda in TFA. (Score:3)
He posits a hypothetical example that in the terms described, no reasonable person would disagree with:
Imagine this story: University scientists, working diligently in their lab, invent something world-changing. Several big corporations steal the invention for themselves, making billions of dollars in profits. The scientists receive nothing.
You don't have to be a professional folklorist or ethicist to conclude that the scientists are the good guys and the corporations are the bad guys.
Sure, because he's just told us the big corporations *stole* something. If we start from that characterization of what happened we'd have to agree, because stealing *by definition* is wrong. We never call rightful and proper uses of things "stealing". He then goes on to make a completely unsubstantiated claim:
In the 1990s, three University of California scientists allegedly developed and patented features that have become integral parts of what we today know as the "Interactive Web" -- including online video, image rotation, and search bar autocomplete.
What evidence does he present that these scientists "invented" anything? None. His characterization of this event is buttressed only by an ad hominem attack on people who disagree with him:
Technology pundits come from Bizarro Technology Punditry World, where up is down, black is white, and Google+ is the best thing ever.
So we aren't supposed to agree with *those* people on patents because he happens to think they're weird? Because they don't like the same things as us? He goes on to say, without any apparent sense of irony that these "bizarro technology pundits" are:
...ever fond of villainizing anyone [who disagrees with them on Internet patents]...
Next he gives us a spectacular display of weasel wording:
To be clear, I am not commenting on the actual results of the case. Not having seen all of the evidence or been in the courtroom, I do not attempt to second-guess the jury; they may well have made the legally correct decision.
So if he's not arguing about the "actual results" in this case, just what the heck is he talking about? We're supposed to feel pity toward the plaintiff,outrage at the defendants, and contempt toward the defendants' supporters -- on what basis? On the basis of something that *might* have happened but didn't? Because he thinks the defendants are greedy and rich, and their supporters are "bizarro pundits" who like Google+?
He's calibrated his imprecision very precisely here. He says has "not seen all the evidence", but does *not* tell us what evidence he *has* seen, or whether he has seen any evidence at all. This makes him hard to argue with -- we don't know which of his claims apply to what actually happened, and which apply to a purely hypothetical world of his own imagining.
Apparently he feels he can stand in the safety of that hypothetical world and lob his opinions at people in the real world :
What I do not understand is -- had the jury determined Eolas's patents valid -- why it would be A-OK for dozens of already megarich corporations to get even richer adopting technology they did not invent or have legal permission to use, but somehow immoral for the actual creators of the technology to likewise profit.
Note how he *predicates* his indictment of the defendants (aka the "megarich corporations") *on something that did not happen* ("had the jury ..."). I started counting the logical fallacies in this statement and gave up when I hit six (straw man, begging the question, appeal to pity, appeal to spite, appeal to authority, and two different kinds of red herring).
Frankly, the reasoning in the article is so weak the only value I can see in discussing it is as an example of deceptive and faulty argumentation. I'd be interested in hearing a more robust argument, say from someone who wants to argue a natural property right to ideas.
Donald Knuth opposes software patents (Score:3)
I'm going to go with "argumentum ad verecundiam" here - I know... bad form.
Here's Professor Emeritus Knuth's Letter to the patent office [progfree.org].
Here are a collection of quotes with references [ffii.org].
If you don't know who Donald Knuth [wikipedia.org] is, you should find out before trying to participate in this discussion. It seems unlikely to me there exists a software patent that isn't derivative of his work.
And since I'm a Groklaw fan, here's a Groklaw article [groklaw.net] about the good professor's views on the subject.
Re:Patent Trolls (Score:5, Informative)
There's a large misconception about Microsoft being a patent troll. In fact, they have never used their patents to bully other companies. Only time they've used their patents is when other companies have tried to bully them. .
So you are claiming that HTC and Samsung have been trying to bully MS? How about B&N?
I hope you are least getting paid for being this wrong.
Re:Patent Trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft PR department is a powerful beast and they pay these trolls to spread misinformation on blogs
I would be very surprised if that was true. It's quite possible that thereare people who legitimatly think/believe opposite of what you think. It's also possible that there are people who are misinformed, at as a result spread the misinformation.
Re:Patent Trolls (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft has always done this. I've been on Slashdot now about nine years and Microsoft has frequently astroturfed this place. And then every year or so there will be the quisling that Microsoft hires from the open source community to be in charge of whatever-they're-calling-their-Linux-lab-now, who will inevitably come here with an olive branch... dipped in arsenic. And let us never forget the level pro-SCO astroturfing that went on here in the day, and you still get a few of those old trolls making rude noises about Pamela Jones. Some, if not all of those guys were ultimately being paid by Microsoft, one way or the other (well, except Daniel Lyons, a fucktard of such incredible stupidity that he actually did it for free).
Re:Patent Trolls (Score:4, Informative)
I neither have the capability nor the desire to go through Slashdot's archives. You can take my word for it or not, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the frequent attacks on Pamela Jones on Slashdot. I won't withdraw it, so that's that.
Re: (Score:2)
Or TomTom.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, where to start?
How about:
Google not making anything.
Suppressing innovation.
Google justifying having those patents.
I know you're a troll, but you could be a little less obvious. OK?
Re: (Score:3)
They really look like they want UID counter to overflow, lol.
I've got an idea. Any new account gets a 30 day blockout from using "Apple", "Microsoft" or "Google" in the comment. That would cut down on the trolling and improve the general quality of discussion as we have enough of those sort of experts here as it is.
Re:Patent Trolls (Score:5, Interesting)
In turn, take a look at Google who is outright buying companies to make their patent war-chest larger and larger. They're somewhat new company so they're only been preparing their chest now.
Meanwhile, how many companies have already filed patent lawsuits at Google already? I don't like it, and I definitely see it as a sign of how broken the patent system is, but Google's doing the same thing that most other big corporations do - they're trying to make sure they have a large enough patent war-chest that when the next group sues them, they can force it into a "well this guy says we're violating patent X, but they're violating our patent Y themselves" settlement scenario, the same sort of thing that happens all the time between big companies (look at the "patent-sharing access" agreements between, say, Intel and AMD).
It sucks, because it makes the patent system about fucking over the smaller companies and ensuring the big semi-monopolies are the only ones who can play on a level playing field. But that's how it works and WHY the patent system needs drastic reform.
Re: (Score:2)
They've certainly made threats against Linux based upon vague patent claims, and though not via patents, they were at least partially bankrolling SCO's spurious IP claims against Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, Mr. IRCTech who has exactly 2 posts - this one and the a canned post about trolling.
Thanks for yet another insightful first post, guy. Hopefully you got at least one free espresso from all of your hard work.
There are no vague threats (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft sells their patents to Intellectual Ventures, which creates companies that sue the competition. Intellectual Ventures was set up by Microsoft executives for just this purpose. Apple does no better. This is all made clear here:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack
Many "features" of both operating systems appeared in open source code first. Fortunately for the corporations, first to file is law of the land now. So are ridiculously long patent lengths. I wonder who paid for those changes in the law over the years.
IANAL, but I have gone toe-to-toe with several and have never lost. What Joe Stangenelli writes is based on simple debate tactics. In order to buy this lawyer's arguement, one must accept that software is "invented". The bottom line is that all software written for a flexible platform is not "invented". The very nature of the computing platforms and languages such as B.A.S.I.C. (The "A" stands for ALL-PURPOSE) indicate that ALL software that is written was intentionally made possible by the hardware manufacturer. Add to this that all software is reducable to math, and there is no valid arguement left to patent software.
Joe Stangenelli compares software patents with process patents, but fails to find the difference. Does the making of potash, or the process of pasteurization require a computer? Can these processes be reduced to math. The answer is a definitive "No" and that is where the comparison ends.
Joe Stangenelli also compares obtaining software patents to Warner Brothers obtaining permission from J.K. Rowling to make Harry Potter movies. Clearly he has trouble distinguishing the difference between copyright and patents. This makes his other arguements even more suspect.
I hate to say it, but Joe Stangenelli appears incompetent in his logic. Perhaps it is an intentional effort to effect the weak minded. Perhaps it is a failure of his training. Either way, Joe Stangenelli has clearly demonstrated the difference between intellegence and wisdom.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've never seen a post so misinformed rated "informative"
Fortunately for the corporations, first to file is law of the land now.
Which does not invalidate prior art.
So are ridiculously long patent lengths
US patents are 20 years, one year less than they were in 1836, and three years more than in 1994.
Re: (Score:3)
>ALL software that is written was intentionally made possible by the hardware manufacturer.
That's like saying that all books are made possible by the people that sold you the paper and pen; it's a false argument.
> Add to this that all software is reducable to math, and there is no valid arguement left to patent software.
Actually, in most cases it is possible to patent maths, provided it's a *part* of a design, not the whole thing. The whole point of patents is to commercially exploit an idea for money
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hey DCTech (Score:4, Insightful)
People tend to cave when it comes to bullies. The cost of trying to fight us usually considered too high. The struggle itself can be expensive regardless of whether you win or lose.
That is why any patent or copyright is "stifling". It gives obnoxious people the idea they have cause to bother others. It doesn't matter if it's Microsoft, Apple, or Harlan Ellison.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hey DCTech (Score:5, Insightful)
Google does have an R&D department, but you should also notice that most of that "research" that Andoroid has to pay for is based on overly broad patents that were granted before there was any kind of scrutiny.
The big problem is, it seems to be more expensive to take microsoft to court and go through a long legal battle than simply pay for them, and that's why almost no one does.
I'm all for patent licencing when you've actually done something good, but describing a general idea like this http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,778,372.PN.&OS=PN/5,778,372&RS=PN/5,778,372 [uspto.gov] or this http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,339,780.PN.&OS=PN/6,339,780&RS=PN/6,339,780 [uspto.gov]
Did you invent a new protocol that speeds up mobile computing? Did you develop a new communication device that revolutionizes anything? Then you should be compensated. But don't say that "a device with a screen and that has a browser and when the browser loads we show an icon moving" is innovation and should be worth 500 million dollars.
Re:Hey DCTech (Score:5, Insightful)
.....then you should be compensated....
Snarl, snort. Feed the troll, especially the attorney in the post.
The problem is much deeper than what you can cover in a slashdot reply, but I'll try to capture the salient points:
1) the US Patent Office process is broken, and despite attempts to the assuage the problem, it grants patents to unbelieveably looneytunes stuff.
2) ideas shouldn't be patented, but they are granted patents, see #1
3) there is no model for compensation, rather, it's what the "inventor" desires, or wants to do battle with, so the output of the process is unpredictable in almost every way; it's a compensation plan for attorneys, not a business model
4) standards and protocols should never be patented, for they are agreements and processes, not inventions. You can't patent math because math is prior art. Algorithms, presentation values are all math. Attempts to patent genes should be met with life without parole: life is prior art.
The life of patents is dubious, and getting worse now that the madmen of media have allowed retroactive protection for "works". It is out of control, and the attorney in the post is indeed snacking from the insanity.
Re: (Score:3)
Brilliant, concise and to the point.
I would only add, that our law makers almost to a man, are lawyers or ex-lawyers and that it is good for lawyers to breed contention, disarray and conflict. A broken patent system, and system in fact which allows the most crass among us to patent, defend and firewall everything and anything including air, sunshine and the rain that falls on your face, makes their greedy little hearts happier than words can say.
Remember they aren't the least bit interested in society. They
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Google spends money on R&D at about the same pct rate as MS.
http://setandbma.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/1240/ [wordpress.com]