4 ms·

I'm inclined to agree with you, but why?

torstenvl 9y ago
Because patents are not intended for mathematical principles or business processes, and that's essentially all software really is. Applying mathematical principles to the implementation of business processes and calling it "business logic" shouldn't magically create a new legal status.
- shawnz 9y ago
  > patents are not intended for [...] business processes Says who? > that's essentially all software really is The implementation of MPEG2 is "business logic"? I wouldn't call it that.
  - TheDong 9y ago
    The software implementation of mpeg2 is covered under copyright. The math/algorithms/whatever are covered by patents. I could write a totally distinct implementation of mpeg2 called "myvideoencoder" which used the same math, and the patent would make that a violation of their rights. Math isn't patentable per numerous rulings in the past, but somehow once a computer is doing math really fast it becomes patentable.
    - jcranmer 9y ago
      What's being patented isn't the math, it's the implementation of that math. As a counterpoint that argues why software patents should exist, I'll point out this. If you build a mechanical feedback mechanism that acts as a controller for some chemical process, no one doubts that said controller meets the patentability criteria. So why should we penalize inventors for emulating that controller in software instead of doing it in hardware? (Note: this scenario is effectively the one that established the patentability of software). The real problem is that the bar for novelty and obviousness in software ought to be much, much higher, and software, having shorter development cadence, needs shorter patent protection times. The most useful change to patent law would be to have patent times adjust to reflect typical development cadences, as opposed to being fixed across all fields.
      - kelnos 9y ago
        I think the backlash against existing software patents and how they're used is why people take such a hard line against software patents. I don't have anything against software patents per se, and your example, I think, is a good one, but 20 years in a field moving as fast as software is ridiculous (I'd push for 5 years at most), and the ability to be issued a patent on trivial bullshit is insane.
        jcranmer 9y ago
        I was thinking 3 years, but the USPTO would probably have a tough time actually granting the patent that quickly. But, yes: the current system is undoubtedly broken. Terms are way to long (for software, at least), and too many patents are clearly violating the novelty bar.
      - Marazan 9y ago
        >What's being patented isn't the math, it's the implementation of that math. That makes absolutely zero sense as an argument. It is absolutely the mathematical principles being patented otherwise how can you possibly prosecute anyone of an independently implemented implementation of the maths?
      - TheDong 9y ago
        That's a bit of a jump. You go from "mechanical systems are patentable" + "some software emulates mechanical systems (which are patentable)" to "all software, regardless of whether it is related to a real mechanical system, is patentable". Does that not seem like a huge leap? mpeg2 sure isn't encoding a mechanical mechanism. Hardly any software these days really is. Software now is mostly focussed on dealing with ætherial information, not physical machines.
        shawnz 9y ago
        Well, the physical universe is turing complete, so it is obviously at least possible to build a mechanical mpeg2 encoder. Should it be patentable?
whatshisface 9y ago
Patents were designed so that companies would contribute to public knowledge instead of keeping everything as a trade secret. The idea was that they would be afforded increased security for a few years, in exchange for the idea becoming public afterwards. The time range was set to be practical for the industry. The problem is, over the past few years software has been moving way too fast for the standard patent timeframe. Patents on software last longer than it would take for a competitor to re-invent a trade secret: the result being that they actually slow down progression. Ideally, we would adjust the term of every patent grant to match (or scale with) the difficulty that a competitor would have to go through to re-invent it. An approximation to that is having different patent durations for different fields (shorter for software), and an approximation to that is not having software patents at all.
- shawnz 9y ago
  > The problem is, over the past few years software has been moving way too fast for the standard patent timeframe. Two thoughts: - Why does this mean that they should be eliminated entirely? Why not revise the timeframe? - Isn't this argument applicable to almost all modern patents, whether software, technological, or otherwise?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - xenadu02 9y ago
    I favor the elimination of software patents but if we must have them then things like MPEG are one of the few examples of software that probably should qualify for patent protection. The idea that no one would research new video codecs without patent protection is laughable - OS vendors, network operators, et al are highly motivated to do so regardless of patents. Unfortunately making software non-patentable isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Perhaps we should fight for some key changes like reducing the length of software patents to something reasonable like 5 years. I'd also like to see an "industry standards" exception to patents: Any implementation of an industry standard created by an international standards organization, working group, or similar authority is exempt from patent suits. Royalties are fixed at some rate determined by the board (but no more than x% of sales price or flat $y per item indexed to inflation) and go into a pool. All patents in the pool are paid out of it. If you think your patent covers something in the standard your only option is to submit your patent to the pool, then you get a cut of the royalties corresponding to your contribution (again as determined by an impartial board). Any fights over standards-related patents would be confined to the board of experts, the royalty rate they determine, and the allocation to each patent. The law would specify that changes to royalties (even court-ordered) can only go into effect once per year and only apply to products manufactured after that date. Such a scheme would encourage everyone to contribute to open standards because it would be the only way to ensure you can avoid patent lawsuits. The one wrinkle is open-source software. I was trying to come up with a workable system. All I landed on was no royalties required for open-source software or end-users of such software, but if a manufacturer uses such software in a product they sell then they would still be subject to royalties.
nothis 9y ago
Hasn’t this been discussed to death? Since most algorithms are more or less pure math, there’s mostly only one way to do things efficiently. You also get quasi-standards that are copyrighted, which is not healthy for competition. Also MPEG2 at least has some work put into it, many software patents are ridiculous. Wasn’t there one for queuing printing jobs?
- shawnz 9y ago
  > Since most algorithms are more or less pure math, there’s mostly only one way to do things efficiently. If that were true, there'd be no competition in the codec space. Besides, why can't the same argument be applied to machinery? There's "mostly only one way" to poke a thread through a sheet of fabric, so why should the sewing machine be patentable?
shmerl 9y ago
The core problem of software patents is usually functional claiming and their thickets.

Because patents are not intended for mathematical principles or business processes, and that's essentially all software really is. Applying mathematical principles to the implementation of business processes and calling it "business logic" shouldn't magically create a new legal status.

shawnz 9y ago
> patents are not intended for [...] business processes Says who? > that's essentially all software really is The implementation of MPEG2 is "business logic"? I wouldn't call it that.
- TheDong 9y ago
  The software implementation of mpeg2 is covered under copyright. The math/algorithms/whatever are covered by patents. I could write a totally distinct implementation of mpeg2 called "myvideoencoder" which used the same math, and the patent would make that a violation of their rights. Math isn't patentable per numerous rulings in the past, but somehow once a computer is doing math really fast it becomes patentable.
  - jcranmer 9y ago
    What's being patented isn't the math, it's the implementation of that math. As a counterpoint that argues why software patents should exist, I'll point out this. If you build a mechanical feedback mechanism that acts as a controller for some chemical process, no one doubts that said controller meets the patentability criteria. So why should we penalize inventors for emulating that controller in software instead of doing it in hardware? (Note: this scenario is effectively the one that established the patentability of software). The real problem is that the bar for novelty and obviousness in software ought to be much, much higher, and software, having shorter development cadence, needs shorter patent protection times. The most useful change to patent law would be to have patent times adjust to reflect typical development cadences, as opposed to being fixed across all fields.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      I think the backlash against existing software patents and how they're used is why people take such a hard line against software patents. I don't have anything against software patents per se, and your example, I think, is a good one, but 20 years in a field moving as fast as software is ridiculous (I'd push for 5 years at most), and the ability to be issued a patent on trivial bullshit is insane.
      - jcranmer 9y ago
        I was thinking 3 years, but the USPTO would probably have a tough time actually granting the patent that quickly. But, yes: the current system is undoubtedly broken. Terms are way to long (for software, at least), and too many patents are clearly violating the novelty bar.
    - Marazan 9y ago
      >What's being patented isn't the math, it's the implementation of that math. That makes absolutely zero sense as an argument. It is absolutely the mathematical principles being patented otherwise how can you possibly prosecute anyone of an independently implemented implementation of the maths?
    - TheDong 9y ago
      That's a bit of a jump. You go from "mechanical systems are patentable" + "some software emulates mechanical systems (which are patentable)" to "all software, regardless of whether it is related to a real mechanical system, is patentable". Does that not seem like a huge leap? mpeg2 sure isn't encoding a mechanical mechanism. Hardly any software these days really is. Software now is mostly focussed on dealing with ætherial information, not physical machines.
      - shawnz 9y ago
        Well, the physical universe is turing complete, so it is obviously at least possible to build a mechanical mpeg2 encoder. Should it be patentable?

whatshisface 9y ago

Patents were designed so that companies would contribute to public knowledge instead of keeping everything as a trade secret. The idea was that they would be afforded increased security for a few years, in exchange for the idea becoming public afterwards. The time range was set to be practical for the industry. The problem is, over the past few years software has been moving way too fast for the standard patent timeframe. Patents on software last longer than it would take for a competitor to re-invent a trade secret: the result being that they actually slow down progression. Ideally, we would adjust the term of every patent grant to match (or scale with) the difficulty that a competitor would have to go through to re-invent it. An approximation to that is having different patent durations for different fields (shorter for software), and an approximation to that is not having software patents at all.

shawnz 9y ago
> The problem is, over the past few years software has been moving way too fast for the standard patent timeframe. Two thoughts: - Why does this mean that they should be eliminated entirely? Why not revise the timeframe? - Isn't this argument applicable to almost all modern patents, whether software, technological, or otherwise?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- xenadu02 9y ago
  I favor the elimination of software patents but if we must have them then things like MPEG are one of the few examples of software that probably should qualify for patent protection. The idea that no one would research new video codecs without patent protection is laughable - OS vendors, network operators, et al are highly motivated to do so regardless of patents. Unfortunately making software non-patentable isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Perhaps we should fight for some key changes like reducing the length of software patents to something reasonable like 5 years. I'd also like to see an "industry standards" exception to patents: Any implementation of an industry standard created by an international standards organization, working group, or similar authority is exempt from patent suits. Royalties are fixed at some rate determined by the board (but no more than x% of sales price or flat $y per item indexed to inflation) and go into a pool. All patents in the pool are paid out of it. If you think your patent covers something in the standard your only option is to submit your patent to the pool, then you get a cut of the royalties corresponding to your contribution (again as determined by an impartial board). Any fights over standards-related patents would be confined to the board of experts, the royalty rate they determine, and the allocation to each patent. The law would specify that changes to royalties (even court-ordered) can only go into effect once per year and only apply to products manufactured after that date. Such a scheme would encourage everyone to contribute to open standards because it would be the only way to ensure you can avoid patent lawsuits. The one wrinkle is open-source software. I was trying to come up with a workable system. All I landed on was no royalties required for open-source software or end-users of such software, but if a manufacturer uses such software in a product they sell then they would still be subject to royalties.

nothis 9y ago

Hasn’t this been discussed to death? Since most algorithms are more or less pure math, there’s mostly only one way to do things efficiently. You also get quasi-standards that are copyrighted, which is not healthy for competition. Also MPEG2 at least has some work put into it, many software patents are ridiculous. Wasn’t there one for queuing printing jobs?

shawnz 9y ago
> Since most algorithms are more or less pure math, there’s mostly only one way to do things efficiently. If that were true, there'd be no competition in the codec space. Besides, why can't the same argument be applied to machinery? There's "mostly only one way" to poke a thread through a sheet of fabric, so why should the sewing machine be patentable?

shmerl 9y ago

The core problem of software patents is usually functional claiming and their thickets.