5 ms·

Yeah, it's super easy to make even the most mundane thing sound like space-age technology: "a process for systematic analysis of textual corpus to identify and

Yeah, it's super easy to make even the most mundane thing sound like space-age technology: "a process for systematic analysis of textual corpus to identify and correct erroneous deviations from accepted linguistic norms" - in other words, spell check. We can't rely on overworked examiners to decipher pseudo-technical bullshit to determine if the behavior of a software system is sufficiently non-obvious and specific. The entire concept of a software patent must be forbidden.

lone_haxx0r 7y ago
I'll go one step further and say that the whole concept of patents is not only unfair, it's ineffective at what it supposedly tries to achieve (fostering innovation). For every monetary incentive of developing something new, there are 10 obstacles because of patent law. Patents are a hindrance more than an aid.
- dual_basis 7y ago
  Maybe so, but the alternative effectively means innovation has zero value. Why would I bother researching how to make a new product when I could just copy an existing one? Oh sure, I could tweak a thing here or there to make sure it's not exactly the same, but entire R&D divisions would just be cut from most corporations if the only value to innovating was that you got there first and ended up having (at most) a year before some other company disassembled your product and recreated it, selling it just above cost. Furthermore, if this was common practice, consumers would know that waiting a while would always lead to a knock-off product being available at huge discount, so even during that initial lead time sales would be impacted.
pnw_hazor 7y ago
your quoted example is a "what" not a "how" There are probably 100 or 1000s of issued patents related to spell checking -- they can solve same problem as long as how they solve the problem is different.
- mcbits 7y ago
  What you're calling a "how" can be a list of simple "what"s. > In an electronic word processing system for creating and editing a document, the document comprising a plurality of sentences, a combined spelling and grammar dialog box for displaying both spelling and grammatical errors in one of the plurality of sentences in the document comprising: > a rich text edit command (RTEC) field for displaying both spelling and grammatical errors found within the sentence and editing the sentence; > an error title line for indicating whether the error displayed in the RTEC field is a spelling error or a grammatical error; > a suggestions list box for displaying a suggestions list, the suggestions list comprises a fist plurality of suggestions operative for correcting the spelling error found if the error type displayed in the error title line indicates a spelling error, or the suggestions lists comprises a second plurality of suggestions for correcting the grammatical error found if the error type displayed in the error title lined indicates a grammatical error; > a plurality of common command buttons operative for correcting both errors in the spelling and in the grammatical composition of the sentence displayed in the RTEC field. https://patents.google.com/patent/US6085206A https://patents.google.com/patent/US6085206A In other words: an editable sentence, the description of a spelling or grammatical error, a list of suggestions to fix the error, and some buttons to apply a suggestion, skip, etc. That specific combination of UI elements was perhaps new in 1996 (as were most GUIs), but not what I'd call an "invention" so valuable to society that it deserves 20 years of protection from free market competition. The actual spelling and grammar analysis code might be worthy of protection for a year or two, but they probably lifted most of that from some college kid's paper.
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    Sorry to bother you with the late reply. For about 10 years the US had a judge made "flash of genius" standard that was part of determining patentibility. It was eliminated by the US Congress in 1952. I haven't done the research, but I imagine the flash-of-genius standard was repealed because it is impossible to objectively quantify. Current non-obviousness analysis incorporates some things that might be evidence of a flash of genius without going there, such as, market success, unmet need, and so on. But usually non-obviousness is determined if one cannot find subject matter in printed publications that one of ordinary skill in the art could combine to make the claimed invention.
naniwaduni 7y ago
You say that as if spell check isn't a Hard Problem...

lone_haxx0r 7y ago

I'll go one step further and say that the whole concept of patents is not only unfair, it's ineffective at what it supposedly tries to achieve (fostering innovation). For every monetary incentive of developing something new, there are 10 obstacles because of patent law. Patents are a hindrance more than an aid.

dual_basis 7y ago
Maybe so, but the alternative effectively means innovation has zero value. Why would I bother researching how to make a new product when I could just copy an existing one? Oh sure, I could tweak a thing here or there to make sure it's not exactly the same, but entire R&D divisions would just be cut from most corporations if the only value to innovating was that you got there first and ended up having (at most) a year before some other company disassembled your product and recreated it, selling it just above cost. Furthermore, if this was common practice, consumers would know that waiting a while would always lead to a knock-off product being available at huge discount, so even during that initial lead time sales would be impacted.

pnw_hazor 7y ago

your quoted example is a "what" not a "how" There are probably 100 or 1000s of issued patents related to spell checking -- they can solve same problem as long as how they solve the problem is different.

mcbits 7y ago
What you're calling a "how" can be a list of simple "what"s. > In an electronic word processing system for creating and editing a document, the document comprising a plurality of sentences, a combined spelling and grammar dialog box for displaying both spelling and grammatical errors in one of the plurality of sentences in the document comprising: > a rich text edit command (RTEC) field for displaying both spelling and grammatical errors found within the sentence and editing the sentence; > an error title line for indicating whether the error displayed in the RTEC field is a spelling error or a grammatical error; > a suggestions list box for displaying a suggestions list, the suggestions list comprises a fist plurality of suggestions operative for correcting the spelling error found if the error type displayed in the error title line indicates a spelling error, or the suggestions lists comprises a second plurality of suggestions for correcting the grammatical error found if the error type displayed in the error title lined indicates a grammatical error; > a plurality of common command buttons operative for correcting both errors in the spelling and in the grammatical composition of the sentence displayed in the RTEC field. https://patents.google.com/patent/US6085206A https://patents.google.com/patent/US6085206A In other words: an editable sentence, the description of a spelling or grammatical error, a list of suggestions to fix the error, and some buttons to apply a suggestion, skip, etc. That specific combination of UI elements was perhaps new in 1996 (as were most GUIs), but not what I'd call an "invention" so valuable to society that it deserves 20 years of protection from free market competition. The actual spelling and grammar analysis code might be worthy of protection for a year or two, but they probably lifted most of that from some college kid's paper.
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  Sorry to bother you with the late reply. For about 10 years the US had a judge made "flash of genius" standard that was part of determining patentibility. It was eliminated by the US Congress in 1952. I haven't done the research, but I imagine the flash-of-genius standard was repealed because it is impossible to objectively quantify. Current non-obviousness analysis incorporates some things that might be evidence of a flash of genius without going there, such as, market success, unmet need, and so on. But usually non-obviousness is determined if one cannot find subject matter in printed publications that one of ordinary skill in the art could combine to make the claimed invention.

naniwaduni 7y ago

You say that as if spell check isn't a Hard Problem...