5 ms·

This EFF release isn't about what technicalities or creative interpretations USPTO used to avoid the complying with Alice because that guidance isn't new, what'

This EFF release isn't about what technicalities or creative interpretations USPTO used to avoid the complying with Alice because that guidance isn't new, what's new is a report that shows the dramatic effect of their avoidance, and that's what the article is about. If you really wanted to know what the guidance was, literally the first link in TFA leads to an EFF backgrounder that explains it, including linking to the actual source. EFF's mission is to effect positive change in technology. If you disagree with their views on software patents, you should expect to not like what or how they have to say. Their mission is not to convert you, it's to drive support and engagement for their ideals among their supporters and undecideds. I personally do agree with them on software patents, and so I approve of their methods because I can see that they optimize for effectiveness of their campaign, as they should.

ineedasername 6y ago
The entire article is about how new guidance had a negative impact. I don't think it's a responsible presentation of the topic if the only way you can find out exactly what they're objecting to is by finding another article, which you don't know whether or not it will have that very relevant information, read it, and then link to a third piece of writing to actually get anywhere. The EFF clearly knows what the guidance says, it would have taken little effort to give an abstract of it. But more and more they seem to have little interest in generating reasoned agreement with their cause, only reflexive support induced by anger and indignation. The cynic in me says it's because they realized it works better, gets more donations. But regardless if their intentions, it comes off as a bit scummy.
- madaxe_again 6y ago
  > it comes off as a bit scummy. And patent trolls? They’re hardworking American businesspeople? Last I checked, their tactics were vexatious litigation, bullying, browbeating, and buying support. In short, if you’re going to fight a pig, you’re going to have to get in the mud with it. If you just stand there making reasoned arguments as to why the pig should lie down, the pig will just look at you, shit on the floor, and continue doing what it was doing.
  - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
    Not everyone trying to patent a computer-implemented invention is a patent troll. Some of those applicants are actually creating a product/service. Some of them are spending b/millions creating things that were previously not considered possible. Should they be rewarded for the effort if in fact it is determined to be possible?
    - wokwokwok 6y ago
      Not everyone, but statistically, the majority. If you want to be a “good guy” patent holder, why don’t you get involved in fighting patent trolls? ...no? Well, that’s because, unfortunately, the distinction between a troll and a “good guy” is a fine, often blurry line. There are other ways to monetise research, like, actually building things. Why not try that?
      - patentatt 6y ago
        Based on my experience as a patent examiner and a patent attorney, it’s definitely not “the majority” of applicants that can be considered any kind of “troll.” Like many other fields and aspects of life, it’s a highly vocal and visible minority that you’re mostly aware of, because the mundane players are, well, mundane.
        dantheman 6y ago
        Really, do you think software patents have done more harm or good? Show me the vibrant ecosystem that software patents have enabled. Patents should never have been applied to software and they're a cancer on the industry.
        patentatt 6y ago
        No, I pretty much agree, but just wanted to point out that an overwhelming majority of patents and patent applicants are very boring and don't make any headlines, ever. That's all.
johnnyo 6y ago
> I personally do agree with them on software patents, and so I approve of their methods Isn't that just a fancy way of saying "The ends justify the means"
- kup0 6y ago
  Maybe sometimes they do?
hcknwscommenter 6y ago
THis is nonsense. The USPTO is applying clear POST_ALICE precedent set forth by the Federal Circuit. The USPTO is heavily weighting their guidance to cases and fact patterns that the Supreme Court has explicitly denied cert, evidencing that they see no reason to revise the Federal Circuit decision. Alice is still good law. However, an invention that lies in software can be patentable. THe new USPTO guidance provide that (actual guidance) to patent seekers on how to describe and claim their invention so that it actually reads on patentable subject matter. Nearly always (maybe even just always) this results in narrower patents that are restricted to a new and non-obvious specific implementation of the basic concept of the invention. That sounds reasonable to me.

ineedasername 6y ago

The entire article is about how new guidance had a negative impact. I don't think it's a responsible presentation of the topic if the only way you can find out exactly what they're objecting to is by finding another article, which you don't know whether or not it will have that very relevant information, read it, and then link to a third piece of writing to actually get anywhere. The EFF clearly knows what the guidance says, it would have taken little effort to give an abstract of it. But more and more they seem to have little interest in generating reasoned agreement with their cause, only reflexive support induced by anger and indignation. The cynic in me says it's because they realized it works better, gets more donations. But regardless if their intentions, it comes off as a bit scummy.

madaxe_again 6y ago
> it comes off as a bit scummy. And patent trolls? They’re hardworking American businesspeople? Last I checked, their tactics were vexatious litigation, bullying, browbeating, and buying support. In short, if you’re going to fight a pig, you’re going to have to get in the mud with it. If you just stand there making reasoned arguments as to why the pig should lie down, the pig will just look at you, shit on the floor, and continue doing what it was doing.
- hcknwscommenter 6y ago
  Not everyone trying to patent a computer-implemented invention is a patent troll. Some of those applicants are actually creating a product/service. Some of them are spending b/millions creating things that were previously not considered possible. Should they be rewarded for the effort if in fact it is determined to be possible?
  - wokwokwok 6y ago
    Not everyone, but statistically, the majority. If you want to be a “good guy” patent holder, why don’t you get involved in fighting patent trolls? ...no? Well, that’s because, unfortunately, the distinction between a troll and a “good guy” is a fine, often blurry line. There are other ways to monetise research, like, actually building things. Why not try that?
    - patentatt 6y ago
      Based on my experience as a patent examiner and a patent attorney, it’s definitely not “the majority” of applicants that can be considered any kind of “troll.” Like many other fields and aspects of life, it’s a highly vocal and visible minority that you’re mostly aware of, because the mundane players are, well, mundane.
      - dantheman 6y ago
        Really, do you think software patents have done more harm or good? Show me the vibrant ecosystem that software patents have enabled. Patents should never have been applied to software and they're a cancer on the industry.
        patentatt 6y ago
        No, I pretty much agree, but just wanted to point out that an overwhelming majority of patents and patent applicants are very boring and don't make any headlines, ever. That's all.

johnnyo 6y ago

> I personally do agree with them on software patents, and so I approve of their methods Isn't that just a fancy way of saying "The ends justify the means"

kup0 6y ago
Maybe sometimes they do?

hcknwscommenter 6y ago

THis is nonsense. The USPTO is applying clear POST_ALICE precedent set forth by the Federal Circuit. The USPTO is heavily weighting their guidance to cases and fact patterns that the Supreme Court has explicitly denied cert, evidencing that they see no reason to revise the Federal Circuit decision. Alice is still good law. However, an invention that lies in software can be patentable. THe new USPTO guidance provide that (actual guidance) to patent seekers on how to describe and claim their invention so that it actually reads on patentable subject matter. Nearly always (maybe even just always) this results in narrower patents that are restricted to a new and non-obvious specific implementation of the basic concept of the invention. That sounds reasonable to me.