5 ms·

Isn't that what we all do, every day?

by lsb 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago
That was sort of the point ;) By making it so broad you could theoretically sue any company.
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  ...and lose, badly, when they provide "prior art". Just because you are awarded a patent doesn't mean it's enforceable. Over-broad patents get challenged, and struck down.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    I think you should probably read the rest of the thread.
    - michael_dorfman 16y ago
      I have. In this case, the patent is considerably narrower than the headline would leave one to believe. Even if someone did manage to get a patent granted on something like "bitfields", this would be an annoyance and not a tragedy, as the patent would never hold up-- it would be trivial to produce prior art to invalidate it. I'm all for discussing patent reform, but it's a lot easier to do in terms of specifics. And, in this case, I don't see anything egregious. At least, not yet.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  And if you could sue based on the title of your patent, that might mean something.
khafra 16y ago
Hrm. I think I should submit an application for "Method for mechanically solving all problems which are in principle computable."
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Actually, that's a really good point. What if Alan Turing had patented the 'Turing Machine', would we be where we are today in computing or would we be stuck somewhere in the 70's?
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Actually, we're not even as far as we got in the 70's in research labs. (Mainstream-wise)
  - michael_dorfman 16y ago
    I vote for "where we are today." A (hypothetical) US patent on the Turing Machine would have stopped any attempts to build a mechanical device to Turing's Specifications (like this one: http://aturingmachine.com/index.php http://aturingmachine.com/index.php) for a period of 20 years. It wouldn't stop anyone from building a device that is computationally equivalent to a Turing Machine; it wouldn't stop anyone from using the abstract notion of a Turing Machine as an intellectual device. In short, a patent would have had no practical effect at all. Now, let's imagine another alternative: one where Turing invented the Turing Machine, but chose not to publish it, as he was afraid of some better-financed competitor learning his "trade secrets" and exploiting the device before he could implement it himself. Where would we be then? Patents are a trade-off. The inventor gets a monopoly for a limited period of time, in exchange for the idea being passed into the public domain after the monopoly expires. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it's not easy to dismiss out of hand.
    - khafra 16y ago
      I don't know--Alonzo Church might have a claim, but a digital computer made by anyone else is obviously derivative and covered by a well-written patent claim.

Isn't that what we all do, every day?

by lsb 16y ago

Isn't that what we all do, every day?

jacquesm 16y ago

That was sort of the point ;) By making it so broad you could theoretically sue any company.

michael_dorfman 16y ago
...and lose, badly, when they provide "prior art". Just because you are awarded a patent doesn't mean it's enforceable. Over-broad patents get challenged, and struck down.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  I think you should probably read the rest of the thread.
  - michael_dorfman 16y ago
    I have. In this case, the patent is considerably narrower than the headline would leave one to believe. Even if someone did manage to get a patent granted on something like "bitfields", this would be an annoyance and not a tragedy, as the patent would never hold up-- it would be trivial to produce prior art to invalidate it. I'm all for discussing patent reform, but it's a lot easier to do in terms of specifics. And, in this case, I don't see anything egregious. At least, not yet.
GHFigs 16y ago
And if you could sue based on the title of your patent, that might mean something.

khafra 16y ago

Hrm. I think I should submit an application for "Method for mechanically solving all problems which are in principle computable."

jacquesm 16y ago
Actually, that's a really good point. What if Alan Turing had patented the 'Turing Machine', would we be where we are today in computing or would we be stuck somewhere in the 70's?
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Actually, we're not even as far as we got in the 70's in research labs. (Mainstream-wise)
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  I vote for "where we are today." A (hypothetical) US patent on the Turing Machine would have stopped any attempts to build a mechanical device to Turing's Specifications (like this one: http://aturingmachine.com/index.php http://aturingmachine.com/index.php) for a period of 20 years. It wouldn't stop anyone from building a device that is computationally equivalent to a Turing Machine; it wouldn't stop anyone from using the abstract notion of a Turing Machine as an intellectual device. In short, a patent would have had no practical effect at all. Now, let's imagine another alternative: one where Turing invented the Turing Machine, but chose not to publish it, as he was afraid of some better-financed competitor learning his "trade secrets" and exploiting the device before he could implement it himself. Where would we be then? Patents are a trade-off. The inventor gets a monopoly for a limited period of time, in exchange for the idea being passed into the public domain after the monopoly expires. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it's not easy to dismiss out of hand.
  - khafra 16y ago
    I don't know--Alonzo Church might have a claim, but a digital computer made by anyone else is obviously derivative and covered by a well-written patent claim.