6 ms·

Reminder: Today is the deadline to tell USPTO to end software patents

• rwl 16y ago
  Send your email to: Bilski_Guidance@uspto.gov The FSF's suggested text is: Software patents hurt individuals by taking away our ability to control the devices that now exert such strong influence on our personal freedoms, including how we interact with each other. Now that computers are near-ubiquitous, it's easier than ever for an individual to create or modify software to perform the specific tasks they want done -- and more important than ever that they be able to do so. But a single software patent can put up an insurmountable, and unjustifiable, legal hurdle for many would-be developers. The Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled in favor of the patentability of software. Their decision in Bilski v. Kappos further demonstrates that they expect the boundaries of patent eligibility to be drawn more narrowly than they commonly were at the case's outset. The primary point of the decision is that the machine-or-transformation test should not be the sole test for drawing those boundaries. The USPTO can, and should, exclude software from patent eligibility on other legal grounds: because software consists only of mathematics, which is not patentable, and the combination of such software with a general-purpose computer is obvious.
  • JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    The suggested text is nonsense. Software is no more "mathematics" than are circuit diagrams, chemistry nor books.
    • nitrogen 16y ago
      If you ask a mathematician, everything is or can be described by math. I'm inclined to agree when it comes to software. Software is just a domain-specific mathematical notation for expressing algorithms in a machine-parsable way.
      • JoeAltmaier 16y ago
        There is Nothing more mathematical about assembly language than coding a book in ASCII - its a coincidence, not intrisic to the subject.
        • amalcon 16y ago
          Tell this to Alan Turing or Alonzo Church.
          • JoeAltmaier 16y ago
            Yes, and if you come up with a new theory of computer science, then run off to the patent office. But if (like most of us) you write A program, then its a program, not an equation or a theorem or anything else mathematical.
            • amalcon 16y ago
              I think you miss the point. The fundamental insights that both Alan Turing and Alonzo Church independently had was that a program is an algorithm (or, more precisely, a numerical representation of an algorithm), which is mathematical by definition.
              • JoeAltmaier 16y ago
                And a lathe is an algorithm, and a cell, and ...
                • amalcon 16y ago
                  I've had this argument several times before, and frankly I'm not interested in having it again right now. If you want to understand, I suggest reading the Wikipedia page on algorithms for a start. If you don't, this is also fine by me.
    • rwl 16y ago
      > Software is no more "mathematics" than are circuit diagrams, chemistry nor books. Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry-Howard_isomorphism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry-Howard_isomorphism
      • JoeAltmaier 16y ago
        Sure Some software corresponds to Some math in a contrived example. That is well-known. How about a disk driver? a network protocol? A game where you shoot a bunny with a flamethrower? Some Computer Scientists occasionally gain benefit from applying math to certain algorithmic software. Is that the only kind that is being patented?
  • gnubardt 16y ago
    Don't forget to CC licensing@fsf.org, so the FSF gets a copy and the USPTO knows there's a large organized body opposing software patents.
• RexRollman 16y ago
  I would personally like the see the end of software patents, as I feel they are bad for the country, but I don't see that happening. Perhaps we should consider something else, like allowing software patents to continue, but limiting them to a far shorter duration (in recognition to the speed of software development)? Say four or five years?
  • SwellJoe 16y ago
    The point of this campaign is that the Supreme Court has recently said, "Software patents go too far." This is an opportunity to tell the USPTO that software patents are not sensible, as they are currently being granted. It is not about "ending software patents" per se, but making them harder to obtain...and now is the best possible time to say something about it, because the supreme court has said, "Yeah, this whole software patent thing probably doesn't exactly make sense."
• tkeller 16y ago
  There are some big companies out there with a lot of their on-the-books valuation existing in the form of software patents. If they suddenly have to mark that stuff down to zero, imagine the crash...
  • deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  • olalonde 16y ago
    I assume they would have to continue enforcing patents for some years to come, but stop granting new ones.
  • SwellJoe 16y ago
    Only patent trolls would crash, which is almost entirely private equity. Let them crash. In fact, I'd argue that it would be a great good for the market in general to knock the wind out of the parasites who live off of software patent trolling. Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, etc. companies that make money from legitimate sources would be barely effected at all (and many tech companies who have huge patent portfolios have spoken in favor of ending software patents or making them less broad). And, startups could breathe a sigh of relief and stop worrying about being the subject of extortion the day they turn a big enough profit to be a target of patent trolls. Besides, this is about how the USPTO grants software patents. It's not about revoking them or abolishing existing patents, though lawsuits to break some of the more pernicious ones probably would follow.
    • tkeller 16y ago
      This is simply not true. Regardless of how, say Microsoft, uses or doesn't use its patents, they account for a substantial percentage of its value on the books. If the accountants suddenly had to revalue them to $0, it would unquestionably have a big impact on the share price.
      • nitrogen 16y ago
        Should that be a consideration when deciding whether to abolish software patents? If nothing else, the USPTO can grandfather the existing patents in, but restrict the ability of their owners to use them aggressively.
• SwellJoe 16y ago
  Based on the previous discussion linked, I'm a little surprised and disappointed by the number of folks here at HN who think software patents aren't that big of a deal, or are somehow good for innovation. I just assumed that anyone who had worked in software for any length of time was aware of the current minefield that is software development. Every field I've worked in (proxies and security, scientific computing, large-scale cluster computing, web service, web-based GUIs, virtualization) have had at least a few seriously dangerous and over-broad patents that loom over the whole field and make everyone a little nervous or forces workarounds or closing ones eyes and pretending to not know and hoping you don't get sued. It is simply impossible to write non-trivial software without violating some patent or other. If you're lucky, it will be patents held by "good" companies that won't sue you. The amount of harm done by software patents is vast, and the amount of good is pretty hard for me to spot. Anyway, I've sent off my email in support of excluding software from patentability, though I have my doubts as to its effectiveness.
• jakevoytko 16y ago
  I just wrote and emailed the following: http://www.jakevoytko.com/blog/2010/09/27/my-letter-to-the-us-patent-office-regarding-software-patents/ http://www.jakevoytko.com/blog/2010/09/27/my-letter-to-the-u... I was short on time, so it is longer than I hoped. However, I think it gets my core feelings across.
• wnoise 16y ago
  The following is my letter: Undoubtedly there will be many comments emphasizing the bad effects of software patents, and that for policy reasons they should not be accepted. While I agree with this argument, I see other fundamental problems with applying patents to software, and write to discourage their use. I instead want to stress that software is not a machine, but instructions, an algorithmic, step-by-step, description of processes. This core nature of software means that even when the process being described by the software is patented, this should not hinder the distribution of the software. A patent application is itself much the same thing -- a description of the process to be covered. It would be utterly ludicrous to forbid the distribution of an approved patent application for violating the patent. The description is not the process itself, nor is it a machine for performing the process. The same really holds true programs. Imagine taking a patent application and annotating with details of a particular way of implementing the patent. At no point does it make sense to forbid the distribution. It is, of course, perfectly reasonable to have an otherwise patentable invention be partially implemented in software. I must argue though that what violates the patent is the whole machine (including the software, to be sure), and not the software itself, nor the general purpose computer itself. Either should be free to be built, used, sold, and otherwise distributed. This is not much different from parts in an invention being illegal to combine in a way that violates the patent, while perfectly legal to have apart or combine in other ways. I will also note that in practice, many software patents have been granted that seems obvious. Combining something with a general purpose computer should never have been considered non-obvious, nor should doing something with a computer network as an intermediary be considered non obvious. Computers were built to perform algorithmic processes. Selecting a particular algorithm may not be obvious, but the use of a computer to execute it certainly is obvious. Computer networks were built to carry general information; making that type of information more specific to a certain use does not make the use of a general network less obvious. Many machines are adapted to a specific used, and must be readapted to be used in a different, but similar circumstance. Computers and computer networks are different. They are general purpose machines where the general really does encompass all specifics.
• Aetius 16y ago
  I won't send a letter to the USPTO, or Congress, or any other government entity for that matter, regarding patents. Instead I will amass a great deal of influence and wealth by purchasing and applying for and litigating on patents, and then I will use this wealth to pay for special interests groups that will fight on my behalf (and ensure that I can) continue to do so. Good Day!
  • nitrogen 16y ago
    You could save yourself a lot of time and money by sharing the costs of the defense.
    • Aetius 16y ago
      Great idea! I'll be sure to implement this in my next venture. Seriously though, does anyone really believe that writing a letter will get something done? Change in Washington, especially for esoteric topics like this, has a cost, and that cost is tribute paid to lobbyists.
      • nitrogen 16y ago
        ...does anyone really believe that writing a letter will get something done? Perhaps not, but a large enough flood of letters from actual software developers may slightly nudge USPTO policy for the better until someone lobbies Congress to force the USPTO to change.
• Ixiaus 16y ago
  I wrote a custom letter echoing my own personal opinions pro-freedom and those of the FSF recommended text.
  • deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
• nitrogen 16y ago
  Here's my message: http://nitrogen.posterous.com/letter-to-uspto-regarding-bilski-and-software http://nitrogen.posterous.com/letter-to-uspto-regarding-bils...
• sswam 16y ago
  I don't care much about software patents. If people sue me for violating some patent, I'll publish on bittorrent and move to Sweden or some free country!
  • bendmorris 16y ago
    Why drop everything and move to some other country that you consider better than here instead of taking a chance to improve the country you live in?