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."
BOFH (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Prior Art. (Score:5, Funny)
You say that as if it's a bad thing (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:You say that as if it's a bad thing (Score:5, Funny)
Except that would only affect people with two legs, not everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Weebles wobble but they don't fall down (Score:2)
Yeah, people could avoid being sued by crawling around all day instead of walking.
Doesn't stop this guy [pineight.com] or these girls [youtube.com] the woman in this video [youtube.com] and this video [youtube.com].
Prior Art (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The concept is normally "borrowed" from someone else.
It's only the implementation that's their own.
Re:You say that as if it's a bad thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand the world.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the world.
Re: (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
it's ok they are all going on the B-Ark (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not hardly. The madness is spreading.
Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:5, Funny)
All Americans suck because all generalizations are false.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that insightful for the first line or because of the "All Americans suck" line? If only all generalizations weren't false, then Americans wouldn't suck and I would know the reason why!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.Re:The patent office - retarding development? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The goal is to encourage investment and sharing. Both benefit the industry and society immensely. Personally, I think the tech industry has done pretty darn well in the couple decades s
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: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: (Score:2)
What's more, there are prizes for things like that. The reward for coming up with new abstract ideas is a whole mess of money and junkets from award-granting institutions. Clay Mathematics Institute Awards, Nobel Prizes, MacArthur Grants, and even cushy research Professorships all serve as a payoff for these kinds of things. You don't need patents on top off that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
All of these algorithms were arguably non-obvious at the time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You've never heard anyone say "I wish there was a free version of this software?" I've heard that a LOT, especially on SlashDot. And if 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, the company is screwed. I think you'd have a better point if more innovation was coming from open source rather than commercial entities.
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: (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 becomi
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with patent system is that it tries to reward the invention before its worth has been proven and, on top of that, does it with granting specific legal rights (to exclude others) which is not a liquid tradable item.
A much better system would be to grant the applicant a kickback from increases in government taxes that were made possible by the inventio
Re: (Score:2)
T
I like it. Sort of a non-blocking "pre-patent" that isn't finalized until a real product is at market. Sort of like saying there can be no standard without a working implementation... nice.
Require actual reduction to practice (Score:2)
Actual reduction to practice by requiring inventors
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And if in the meantime, Joe Hacker comes up with the same idea (after step 1) and publishes a program implementing it under the GPL before either steps 3 or 4?
The whole model we have now is broken, especially with respect to software. But figure this in too - there are more educated people alive today than have ever existed before. Some stuff may deserve to be patentable, but the bar must be very, very, very high.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130 [theonion.com]
(hint for the humor-impaired: consider the source)
Re: (Score:2)
Only in America.
I thought so ... (Score:2)
Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking like Microsoft Managers need something like that right now! They certainly appear to need something like that in the legal division. (I shudder when I imagine what a M$ "think tank" might look like.)
Re: (Score:2)
Have an evil cleric rebuke them until they are commanded ? Microsoft Managers should be able to use half their manager level for that...
prior art .... (Score:3, Interesting)
How telling, and how sad (Score:5, Funny)
"At Microsoft, these two halves of the brain come together in the colon."
Metric? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"I'm nearly two kilometers tall."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 +
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: (Score:2)
3D graph might be going a bit overboard - I prefer the UI to be "clean"... but the idea is basically there - under the system I was thinking, the post you describe would be a +11 in total, and the various moderations could be seen in the usual way when you get the detail of it.
A further improvement could be that people's modifiers for type (e.g. +1 interesting, -1 funny etc) would only apply to those moderations that actually occurred. So, if a post had the moderations you give, and I down-valued "insight
Re: (Score:2)
Then I could read only those posts that I want when I've not got tons of time to read everything.
Since we did go a bit off topic, I'd also like to see each thread's links. Sa
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah --- and then when you create your account here, you define your own projection down to one dimension so you can still sort threads!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah --- and then when you create your account here, you define your own projection down to one dimension so you can still sort threads!
The good new is... (Score:2)
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).
File + 20 vs. grant + 17 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Harsh.. Just harsh...
I find it odd that you claim the poster doesn't know how long patents last, yet you give no correction.
On the topic of what is *actually* wrong with the patent system, I don't think it is the issues people on
I believe the problem with the patent system is that their one goal should be to advance the state of the art. The monopoly is simple a means to the end. By offering a monopoly on the technology, you persuad
Re: (Score:2)
That's because it is incredibly easy to find out (20 years from filing date (or from the priority date if it is a continuation or divisional application) since you apparently don't know yourself).
Well, that wins you a promotion to Brigadier General Obvious. You would ge
Wrong title (Score:5, Funny)
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?
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: (Score:2)
Well, of course it is. The patent office can't advise you to do something that may involve infringing a patent [freepatentsonline.com].
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"?
StephanRe: (Score:2)
Says it all really.
Microsoft Seeks Patent On Brain-Based Development (Score:2, Funny)
This must be patentable... (Score:3, Funny)
I think anyone who reads the article can plainly see that Microsoft has apparently invented a nearly perfect process for blowing their smoke up someones else's ass... I believe this makes them the proud inventors of the remote smoked ham... Bravo Gentlemen!
When they market it... (Score:2, Funny)
Two degrees of separation... (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft can pry my Corpus Callosum from my cold, dead brain. I think either God can claim or Darwin can demonstrate some sort of prior art here. Just need to schedule a court appearance for one of them...
Re: (Score:2)
At first I read that as Corpus Cavernosa (saw that an article earlier today was submitted by a user with that nick - must be a dick). Then again, it might be that a typical MS manager has a corpus cavernosa where his/her corpus collosum should be.
April Fools Joke (Score:2)
The reason why it's listed as having been filed on November 6 is that whomever filed it forgot to turn of the auto-predating feature. (Yeah, I know it's illegal, but we're talking about Microsoft, here).
Comment 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: (Score:2)
As a developer, I find I communicate well with other developers I work with; I understand the customer's need quite well (and thankfully they're usually pretty vague, so I have the luxury of fleshing out details myself); and ALWAYS deliver on time.
My method for achieving the "always deliver on time" result is simply the Scotty method. Never underestimate it.
PHB must be running MS (Score:2)
Anything else is just excuses
Quit enabling this shit, otherwise it is your own fault.
Wait a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just, excuse the expression, patently absurd.
Unfortunately you can patent business processes (Score:3, Informative)
I think that can be done only in the US. Are there other countries that allow business process patents?
OH my God!! (Score:2)
A idea (Score:3, Funny)
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.
finally, a REAL reason to bash microsoft... (Score:3, Informative)
A little more reading will also tell you that functional lateralization is far from exact; for example, while right-handers typically have speech centers located in the left hemisphere, lefties are more likely to have speech control divided between both hemispheres. Are there statistical tendencies in function lateralization? In so far as there are tendencies in function localization, yes. Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with saying that people have certain information-processing preferences. (Oh, and by the way, it's usually much easier to just ask people what their preferences are, rather than using one of those lame MBTI tests. Self-reported preferences don't automatically become "scientific" by assigning them alphanumerical codes.) However, the ideas that you can (1) infer properties of someone's neurological structure based on their job title, and (2) use said properties to devise an optimal communications strategy, are 100% grade-A #1 hogwash. The media's gross unwillingness (or, more likely, inability) to interpret basic research leads to all kinds of farces like this. (For example - the next time someone refers to that old chestnut about how we use only 10% of our brains, consider what the result of using 100% of your brain would be: a skull-fucking seizure. Med students, back me up! Or tell me off; I just want to know...)
(begin microrant) But the worst exploiters of this pseudo-scientific garbage are educational consultants - you know, the ones who neurotic mothers pay (either directly, at clinics, or indirectly, through shitty-book sales) to have their children diagnosed as misunderstood geniuses. "Oh, my little Johnny! Sure, he gets Cs and Ds in every subject in school, but that's just because he's a special learner! He's a right-brained, visual-spatial prodigy with mild autism and extra cheese, just like Einstein! The teachers just don't know how to deal with him!" Here's a hint, folks: the more stringent the conditions under which someone's genius is supposed to manifest itself, the more likely that said genius is nothing more than neurotic maternal rationaliz
Re: (Score:2)
The parent post is probably one of the best posts I have ever read on Slashdot. Whoever you are, Mr AC, I tip my hat to you.
(Note: Hat tipping did actually occur; I wear a black felt fedora, and was impressed enough to tip it in the direction of my computer when reading this post)
Dear Mr. Ozzie - go screw yourself (Score:2)
I'm an engineer.
I'm also a writer (of fiction, no less).
I'm also an artist.
I communicate well with others.
I appreciate music. I have insight. I understand 3d forms.
If this is how you, Mr. Ozzie, run your org, you can expect me never to consider working there. Ever. Because frankly, the idea of being pigeonholed as a bit-pusher annoys the hell out of me.
You know what you get if you enc
Re: (Score:2)
Prior Art (Score:3, Funny)
Prior art (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
-Mike
Another totally pointless patent. (Score:2)
This is a patent on a dumb way to develop software. Nothing to see here, move along.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Funny)