4 ms·

i get a large majority of software patents should not exist, but are there no software ideas that are truly patentable? what makes a "physical" patent you cons

by siphor 7y ago

i get a large majority of software patents should not exist, but are there no software ideas that are truly patentable? what makes a "physical" patent you consider valid different from a software patent? I know there is some difference, it's hard to formalize though. Say someone spent years building a compression algorithm 10x better than everyone else's in some novel way and then tried to capitalize on it. And then google just copied the idea and put this guys company out of business. Isn't that bad?

shujito 7y ago
One still could be able to license the software while keeping it closed source until one decides to let people use it freely.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
humanrebar 7y ago
> Isn't that bad? Yes. You don't invent or build math; you discover it. It's nature. Patenting DNA is also silly for similar reasons.
- hgoel 7y ago
  You do however build software. Even with DNA, if you manually assemble a sequence, is it not something you've built? DNA imo is special not because of being something you discover, but because it's an integral part of everyone and the process by which sequences occur naturally is too random to guarantee that a sequence will remain unique. Software on the other hand, is still the product of a thinking mind, so it should be given proper protections as intellectual property. However, the standard for the patent needs to be much higher than it is right now (presumably because those determining the uniqueness of the idea aren't all that experienced or up to date with the industry the idea relates to). Either that or a better way for people to contest the validity of patents.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    > Even with DNA, if you manually assemble a sequence, is it not something you've built? That’s not what DNA patents are. People are patenting genes that they find in nature. No invention at all, nothing created.
chrismcb 7y ago
No, there are no software ideas that are truly patentable, because ideas area not patentable. Code is copyrighted. Algorithms shouldn't be. If you spent developing a better compression, then sell the software, but don't release the algorithm. Some of the problems with software patents is "on a computer" or "on a server" just aren't novel enough. In fact, that is the problem with most patents, they aren't novel enough.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  Every patent is composed of ideas, based on a description of something that can be made by humans, thought of by a human.
- egdod 7y ago
  > ideas area not patentable Totally wrong. Ideas are exactly what is protected by patents.
  - wiggles_md 7y ago
    Patents protect inventions, not ideas. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-you-patent-an-idea https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-you-patent-an-idea
    - egdod 7y ago
      What’s an “invention”? It’s not a particular physical embodiment.
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  the "on a computer" days are long past. And, soon the remainder of those crap computer-related patents from the early days will expire anyway if they haven't been invalidated already.
HarryHirsch 7y ago
what makes a "physical" patent you consider valid different from a software patent? The investment. When you do process development or manufacturing the outlays for research and development are infinitely larger. You need a pilot plant, prototypes, testing, and soon you have spent tens of millions that you need to recover. In software you pay the salaries of a team of programmers. The investment in research that needs to be recovered before you can turn a profit is infinitely smaller, in software you have a government-protected money printing machine. Trade secrets work well enough.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  Patents are not granted according to development cost or profit potential.
  - HarryHirsch 7y ago
    That is the problem. You have people patenting the problem space, and then they just squat there, preventing innovation. Imagine NMR processing. One company patents fast fourier transform, the other patents entropy maximization. Everyone else gets to pay licenses. The power of government has been suborned for private profit with no public benefit.
    - pnw_hazor 7y ago
      You can't patent a problem space. You can get patents on innovations in a problem space. Several patents from several inventors can be directed to solving the same exact problem. It is the 'how' that matters not the 'what'
    - jacques_chester 7y ago
      Patents are a tradeoff between granting a monopoly (generally negative) and creating a public good (generally positive). They're time limited for that reason. If you find the patent valuable enough to license, you have the advantage that you have a description of the idea sufficiently detailed that you can recreate it after paying the license. The patent owner gets a return for their very chancy investment (well-prepared patents are expensive). After 20 years everyone can use it for free. The alternative is that nobody shares anything with anyone. You still wind up with monopolies on ideas, but no incentive for anyone to convert their ideas into a public good after a fixed term.
jcranmer 7y ago
A long time ago I was vehemently against all software patents. But as I thought about it more, I ran into the same problem you did: where is the boundary between a clear "machine" patent versus a software patent, especially if you look at modern microprocessors that rely heavily on microcode. My resolution to the conundrum is this: software should be patentable, but we should recognize that the bar for a software patent is much higher. It is much, much easier to iterate on several ideas and concepts in software than it is in hardware: I can try five approaches in a day in software, but building five prototype machines may take several months. As an example of something that might make the bar, I'd submit PageRank. It's easy to say that it's merely taking the eigenvalue of the Internet, so therefore it's not patentable. But the novelty and creativity is not in figuring out how to take the eigenvalue, but recognizing that the result of this operation is tremendously useful in the problem of searching the internet. The combination of the algorithm and the use it is put to is the basis of the patent--for prior art here, note that drug patents do not patent the molecule itself, or the process of manufacturing the molecule, but using the molecule to treat the condition.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  The thing is, you don't need to build a machine to patent the design. You just need to design it. So you can still try five approaches a day for a hardware invention as you do for software. I generally agree that picking the right line is hard and that nobody will ever be happy.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    There used to be a requirement that you had a prototype in order to obtain a patent. I wouldn't mind going back to that requirement.
    - jacques_chester 7y ago
      Maybe, but it's not very tractable to have thousands of prototypes being delivered to the USPTO each day. The point of the patent is to provide all the information required to completely recreate the invention and explain how it works.
perfunctory 7y ago
Presumably in a world without patents a monopoly like google wouldn’t exist.

by siphor 7y ago

shujito 7y ago

One still could be able to license the software while keeping it closed source until one decides to let people use it freely.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

humanrebar 7y ago

> Isn't that bad? Yes. You don't invent or build math; you discover it. It's nature. Patenting DNA is also silly for similar reasons.

hgoel 7y ago
You do however build software. Even with DNA, if you manually assemble a sequence, is it not something you've built? DNA imo is special not because of being something you discover, but because it's an integral part of everyone and the process by which sequences occur naturally is too random to guarantee that a sequence will remain unique. Software on the other hand, is still the product of a thinking mind, so it should be given proper protections as intellectual property. However, the standard for the patent needs to be much higher than it is right now (presumably because those determining the uniqueness of the idea aren't all that experienced or up to date with the industry the idea relates to). Either that or a better way for people to contest the validity of patents.
- garmaine 7y ago
  > Even with DNA, if you manually assemble a sequence, is it not something you've built? That’s not what DNA patents are. People are patenting genes that they find in nature. No invention at all, nothing created.

chrismcb 7y ago

No, there are no software ideas that are truly patentable, because ideas area not patentable. Code is copyrighted. Algorithms shouldn't be. If you spent developing a better compression, then sell the software, but don't release the algorithm. Some of the problems with software patents is "on a computer" or "on a server" just aren't novel enough. In fact, that is the problem with most patents, they aren't novel enough.

jacques_chester 7y ago
Every patent is composed of ideas, based on a description of something that can be made by humans, thought of by a human.
egdod 7y ago
> ideas area not patentable Totally wrong. Ideas are exactly what is protected by patents.
- wiggles_md 7y ago
  Patents protect inventions, not ideas. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-you-patent-an-idea https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-you-patent-an-idea
  - egdod 7y ago
    What’s an “invention”? It’s not a particular physical embodiment.
pnw_hazor 7y ago
the "on a computer" days are long past. And, soon the remainder of those crap computer-related patents from the early days will expire anyway if they haven't been invalidated already.

HarryHirsch 7y ago

what makes a "physical" patent you consider valid different from a software patent? The investment. When you do process development or manufacturing the outlays for research and development are infinitely larger. You need a pilot plant, prototypes, testing, and soon you have spent tens of millions that you need to recover. In software you pay the salaries of a team of programmers. The investment in research that needs to be recovered before you can turn a profit is infinitely smaller, in software you have a government-protected money printing machine. Trade secrets work well enough.

jacques_chester 7y ago
Patents are not granted according to development cost or profit potential.
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  That is the problem. You have people patenting the problem space, and then they just squat there, preventing innovation. Imagine NMR processing. One company patents fast fourier transform, the other patents entropy maximization. Everyone else gets to pay licenses. The power of government has been suborned for private profit with no public benefit.
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    You can't patent a problem space. You can get patents on innovations in a problem space. Several patents from several inventors can be directed to solving the same exact problem. It is the 'how' that matters not the 'what'
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    Patents are a tradeoff between granting a monopoly (generally negative) and creating a public good (generally positive). They're time limited for that reason. If you find the patent valuable enough to license, you have the advantage that you have a description of the idea sufficiently detailed that you can recreate it after paying the license. The patent owner gets a return for their very chancy investment (well-prepared patents are expensive). After 20 years everyone can use it for free. The alternative is that nobody shares anything with anyone. You still wind up with monopolies on ideas, but no incentive for anyone to convert their ideas into a public good after a fixed term.

jcranmer 7y ago

A long time ago I was vehemently against all software patents. But as I thought about it more, I ran into the same problem you did: where is the boundary between a clear "machine" patent versus a software patent, especially if you look at modern microprocessors that rely heavily on microcode. My resolution to the conundrum is this: software should be patentable, but we should recognize that the bar for a software patent is much higher. It is much, much easier to iterate on several ideas and concepts in software than it is in hardware: I can try five approaches in a day in software, but building five prototype machines may take several months. As an example of something that might make the bar, I'd submit PageRank. It's easy to say that it's merely taking the eigenvalue of the Internet, so therefore it's not patentable. But the novelty and creativity is not in figuring out how to take the eigenvalue, but recognizing that the result of this operation is tremendously useful in the problem of searching the internet. The combination of the algorithm and the use it is put to is the basis of the patent--for prior art here, note that drug patents do not patent the molecule itself, or the process of manufacturing the molecule, but using the molecule to treat the condition.

jacques_chester 7y ago
The thing is, you don't need to build a machine to patent the design. You just need to design it. So you can still try five approaches a day for a hardware invention as you do for software. I generally agree that picking the right line is hard and that nobody will ever be happy.
- jcranmer 7y ago
  There used to be a requirement that you had a prototype in order to obtain a patent. I wouldn't mind going back to that requirement.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    Maybe, but it's not very tractable to have thousands of prototypes being delivered to the USPTO each day. The point of the patent is to provide all the information required to completely recreate the invention and explain how it works.

perfunctory 7y ago

Presumably in a world without patents a monopoly like google wouldn’t exist.