6 ms·

Software should not be patented at all. Math has not been patentable under any scheme until recently, where over a series of lawsuits the US courts have effect

Software should not be patented at all. Math has not been patentable under any scheme until recently, where over a series of lawsuits the US courts have effectively made a subset of it (software) patentable. And it all started thanks to seeing a computer operated manufacturing process as something patentable over the same process done without a computer...

eganist 9y ago
I don't believe the math patentability rebuttal holds, otherwise it can be readily extended to the real world through assembly instructions for tangible inventions, especially with the advent of 3d printing. I'm not saying the patent system is bug-free, but I am saying it'll be a lot harder to drive the kind of innovation we're used to seeing here with no patent protection at all (copyright only protects the implementation, and trade secrets are things you don't share e.g. as client-side code). Full disclosure: I've got a few to my name. I don't think any of the inventors I know would've even bothered inventing the patterns they/we did if the protection didn't exist. Unpopular opinion, I'm certain.
- eloff 9y ago
  3d printing makes a physical invention, patentable like any other. The manner of assembly is not relevant. Software is math and it shouldn't be patentable. I think very little good has come of that at all.
  - eganist 9y ago
    I'm sure I'm missing something, but where would the economic incentive to develop the majority of (specifically) client-side applications have come from especially in the era before the .com boom?
    - eloff 9y ago
      You still have copyright protecting your code. All a patent does is let you have a lot of time and money for an option to sue some types of companies trying to clone your idea. But companies are all about the execution. There's clones of every successful company, patents didn't change that. But most fail. It was easy to clone Facebook the website way back when or Snapchat the app. Good luck beating them at their own game though. For any startups here thinking patents are a good use of their time - think again.
      - eganist 9y ago
        I'd initially contested the idea of copyright protecting code in my above comment but decided to redact it to see which direction this conversation would take. (Tangent: Trade secrets protect knowledge implemented within my spheres of trust, i.e. "my systems.") Copyright protects the literal documentation/expression of knowledge, such as an algorithm, not the knowledge itself. As an example, reimplementing a novel algorithm in a different language or over a different framework will likely be enough to subvert copyright protection over the code itself. Copyright will ineffectively protect novel algorithms, whereas patents do a good job of protecting these algorithms in well-exposed contexts e.g. client-side from unauthorized imitation and usage day zero (or, more realistically, day 30). Barring a tactical or strategic error in the approved patent — a wonderful example of this, if I recall correctly, is the Swype patent¹ which prompts the user to pick a word rather than guess one for the user — the patent will effectively cover the algorithm in any implementation for the statutory duration. A separate issue: "All a patent does is let you have a lot of time and money for an option to sue some types of companies trying to clone your idea. But companies are all about the execution." That's the use case that garners the most press coverage. The sort that's more prevalent and far less noisy is licensing, and this happens far, far more often, and generally with not so much as a peep in the press. In fact, this is one survival strategy used by some startups as they pivot when they've created novel technologies but have devised ineffective business models around them. This moots the following statement: "For any startups here thinking patents are a good use of their time - think again." — it really depends on how the patents are acquired, such as through deferred equity compensation. I'd argue against doing so in cash, but doing so with equity could make sense especially if the startup's novel ideas are expected to be executed in untrusted (read: client, or "not my systems") environments. My main argument is that software patent durations need to be cropped. Could be three years, could be five, but given the pace of software development, twenty is patently (ahem) anti-competitive in the software world. That's the argument I'll stand by unless anyone has a proposal to protect and incentivize the creation of novel algorithms without the use of patents. Source: the numerous IP lawyers I've worked with during both my day job and consulting engagements. But I'm not an attorney, which means there's a nontrivial chance I got some of the nuances wrong, but I'm willing to attach my name to the overall message. --- ¹—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=7,098,896.PN.&OS=PN/7,098,896&RS=PN/7,098,896 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H... "The present invention then generates a list of possible words associated with the entered part and presents it to user for selection."
sanxiyn 9y ago
I recommend a book on software patents, Math You Can't Use. It has been more than 10 years since the author so eloquently argued why software patents should be abolished completely. Sadly not much has changed.
toomanybeersies 9y ago
Software can't be patented in New Zealand: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2013/0068/latest/DLM5516600.html http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2013/0068/latest/D... So far the sky has not fallen down and the software industry is healthy.
amscanne 9y ago
The “software is math” line of reasoning doesn’t make sense to me. Is it math because numbers and logic are involved? In that sense, chemistry is just as much math, yet new compounds and drugs are readily patentable. Ditto for physics or mechanical engineering, both of which can produce patentable goods. The only difference for software seems to be that it’s trivially copiable and adaptable. This isn’t to say there aren’t massive problems with software patents today. Regardless of how you feel about the concept generally, the patent on timestamps seems roughly equivalent to a patent on painting something red, a trivial and obvious product refinement.
- c22 9y ago
  It's because numbers and logic are all that's involved. Unlike those other disciplines, any "result" in computing could be derived and executed entirely inside one's head, the computer, in principle, is just saving us time by doing the calculations for us. This is what makes software analogous to math. I have no idea why math should be immune from the otherwise ridiculous and overreaching patent system.
  - amscanne 9y ago
    That’s all true for chemistry and physics too, once there’s an understanding of the princples. Yet new chemical compounds are patentable. And software is hardly pure numbers and logic. Many aspects of algorithms (and patents) are related to real world elements of the _machine_ executing instructions. The concept of a “space-efficient” algorithm is only meaningful because space has a real world cost and imposes constraints. There are no implications for space in pure “numbers and logic”.

eganist 9y ago

I don't believe the math patentability rebuttal holds, otherwise it can be readily extended to the real world through assembly instructions for tangible inventions, especially with the advent of 3d printing. I'm not saying the patent system is bug-free, but I am saying it'll be a lot harder to drive the kind of innovation we're used to seeing here with no patent protection at all (copyright only protects the implementation, and trade secrets are things you don't share e.g. as client-side code). Full disclosure: I've got a few to my name. I don't think any of the inventors I know would've even bothered inventing the patterns they/we did if the protection didn't exist. Unpopular opinion, I'm certain.

eloff 9y ago
3d printing makes a physical invention, patentable like any other. The manner of assembly is not relevant. Software is math and it shouldn't be patentable. I think very little good has come of that at all.
- eganist 9y ago
  I'm sure I'm missing something, but where would the economic incentive to develop the majority of (specifically) client-side applications have come from especially in the era before the .com boom?
  - eloff 9y ago
    You still have copyright protecting your code. All a patent does is let you have a lot of time and money for an option to sue some types of companies trying to clone your idea. But companies are all about the execution. There's clones of every successful company, patents didn't change that. But most fail. It was easy to clone Facebook the website way back when or Snapchat the app. Good luck beating them at their own game though. For any startups here thinking patents are a good use of their time - think again.
    - eganist 9y ago
      I'd initially contested the idea of copyright protecting code in my above comment but decided to redact it to see which direction this conversation would take. (Tangent: Trade secrets protect knowledge implemented within my spheres of trust, i.e. "my systems.") Copyright protects the literal documentation/expression of knowledge, such as an algorithm, not the knowledge itself. As an example, reimplementing a novel algorithm in a different language or over a different framework will likely be enough to subvert copyright protection over the code itself. Copyright will ineffectively protect novel algorithms, whereas patents do a good job of protecting these algorithms in well-exposed contexts e.g. client-side from unauthorized imitation and usage day zero (or, more realistically, day 30). Barring a tactical or strategic error in the approved patent — a wonderful example of this, if I recall correctly, is the Swype patent¹ which prompts the user to pick a word rather than guess one for the user — the patent will effectively cover the algorithm in any implementation for the statutory duration. A separate issue: "All a patent does is let you have a lot of time and money for an option to sue some types of companies trying to clone your idea. But companies are all about the execution." That's the use case that garners the most press coverage. The sort that's more prevalent and far less noisy is licensing, and this happens far, far more often, and generally with not so much as a peep in the press. In fact, this is one survival strategy used by some startups as they pivot when they've created novel technologies but have devised ineffective business models around them. This moots the following statement: "For any startups here thinking patents are a good use of their time - think again." — it really depends on how the patents are acquired, such as through deferred equity compensation. I'd argue against doing so in cash, but doing so with equity could make sense especially if the startup's novel ideas are expected to be executed in untrusted (read: client, or "not my systems") environments. My main argument is that software patent durations need to be cropped. Could be three years, could be five, but given the pace of software development, twenty is patently (ahem) anti-competitive in the software world. That's the argument I'll stand by unless anyone has a proposal to protect and incentivize the creation of novel algorithms without the use of patents. Source: the numerous IP lawyers I've worked with during both my day job and consulting engagements. But I'm not an attorney, which means there's a nontrivial chance I got some of the nuances wrong, but I'm willing to attach my name to the overall message. --- ¹—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=7,098,896.PN.&OS=PN/7,098,896&RS=PN/7,098,896 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H... "The present invention then generates a list of possible words associated with the entered part and presents it to user for selection."

sanxiyn 9y ago

I recommend a book on software patents, Math You Can't Use. It has been more than 10 years since the author so eloquently argued why software patents should be abolished completely. Sadly not much has changed.

toomanybeersies 9y ago

Software can't be patented in New Zealand: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2013/0068/latest/DLM5516600.html http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2013/0068/latest/D... So far the sky has not fallen down and the software industry is healthy.

amscanne 9y ago

The “software is math” line of reasoning doesn’t make sense to me. Is it math because numbers and logic are involved? In that sense, chemistry is just as much math, yet new compounds and drugs are readily patentable. Ditto for physics or mechanical engineering, both of which can produce patentable goods. The only difference for software seems to be that it’s trivially copiable and adaptable. This isn’t to say there aren’t massive problems with software patents today. Regardless of how you feel about the concept generally, the patent on timestamps seems roughly equivalent to a patent on painting something red, a trivial and obvious product refinement.

c22 9y ago
It's because numbers and logic are all that's involved. Unlike those other disciplines, any "result" in computing could be derived and executed entirely inside one's head, the computer, in principle, is just saving us time by doing the calculations for us. This is what makes software analogous to math. I have no idea why math should be immune from the otherwise ridiculous and overreaching patent system.
- amscanne 9y ago
  That’s all true for chemistry and physics too, once there’s an understanding of the princples. Yet new chemical compounds are patentable. And software is hardly pure numbers and logic. Many aspects of algorithms (and patents) are related to real world elements of the _machine_ executing instructions. The concept of a “space-efficient” algorithm is only meaningful because space has a real world cost and imposes constraints. There are no implications for space in pure “numbers and logic”.