3 ms·

Let's be clear about the point of patents first. Patents are for non-obvious inventions, and they exist to encourage sharing that invention's details with the p

Let's be clear about the point of patents first. Patents are for non-obvious inventions, and they exist to encourage sharing that invention's details with the public. The idea is that a patented invention is novel enough that it's unlikely someone else would independently invent it, so the patent encourages the inventor to share all the details of the invention (and in exchange gives them a monopoly on it). Patents are specifically _not_ for good ideas that aren't non-obvious inventions. You can't patent the idea of "1 click buying" or "a time machine", only an actual invention/implementation that does those things. I agree amazon's 1-click experience is a really good idea. It's also well designed and implemented. The question though is whether some other developer could, given the idea of "1 click buy", create this "invention". I think it's unquestionable that, given the problem statement, many other developers of the time could have created the same thing. In fact, a bunch of other developers have already created 1-click buy buttons, and I assure you the vast majority did not read amazon's patent to figure out how to write that code. The fact that people can build this invention without looking at amazon's patent, to me, proves it should not be patentable. The general public gained nothing from the patent.

Retric 6y ago
That’s not really how patents are supposed to work. If you give someone enough constraints almost any patent will seem obvious. The point of patents is when an entire industry is solving a given problem doing X, and someone comes up with a better option then you want that industry to use the better method. To get that swap you need public disclosure in some industries, and to get public disclosure you need incentives. For widely available products that disclosure may consist of the actual object without any patents. But, for say oil refineries people don’t just get to walk around and see what’s what. Having said that the parent system could be changed in a vast number of ways with many tradeoffs. Just consider the wider implications beyond just software or mass produced items.
- newsclues 6y ago
  Non obvious test? If the patent was never invented and filed, would a child be able to come up with and communicate the idea patented? If one click to buy didn’t exist today, how many children would be able to simply state the obvious solution of one click purchasing?
  - TheDong 6y ago
    The actual non-obvious test is not a child, but "a person skilled in the art" (of software in this case). You also are talking about the idea, not the invention. The idea was not patented, the technical invention (effectively flow-charts for how to have a button click trigger an auth cookie check, have databases retrieve credit card numbers, etc), which is not obvious to a child. But, I would argue, the details of the invention would be clear enough to someone skilled in the art, another competent programmer.
- jkrems 6y ago
  > If give someone enough constraints almost any patent will seem obvious. That seems like a strawperson. The parent said that just given the very rough idea or (I would add) even just the term "1 click buy", somebody could have created a comparable experience without any reference to the patent. That's not "give someone enough constraints". That's "let somebody overhear a customer mention the feature in passing". Suggesting that Amazon wouldn't have invented 1-click buy without patents seems incompatible with good business practices. All my conversations with other developers mentioned a single reason for patenting "random" features at this point: As a way to defend against other people's patents. The only reason _not_ to create a novel feature was that it may be too close to something patented and a lucky lawyer may have argued that it was too close. If anything, software patents actively discourage innovation. I've never heard of anybody implementing a feature by using a patent. I've never heard of somebody developing a novel feature to get a patent. Which means as "patents", they are useless.
  - Retric 6y ago
    The actual patent isn’t the same as disclosure. Take RSA encryption for example. People don’t implement it from the patent, but independent invention was extremely rare. People’s implementations generally trace the idea back to Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Leonard Adleman, who publicly described the algorithm in 1977. Yet, overhear the idea in passing and it’s implementation is obvious. Actual secure crypto is much harder than a simple implementation though. RSA is interesting because an equivalent algorithm was independently discovered in 1973 at GCHQ the British signals intelligence agency, and only declassified in 1997. So in effect it’s disclosure not invention that shaped public crypto. I am not saying patents are a great fit for software, but I am saying disclosure in one form or another is.
- MikeUt 6y ago
  > If give someone enough constraints almost any patent will seem obvious. In the one-click case, it's like getting a patent on the idea of conversion of heat to mechanical motion, then demanding payment from James Watt for his steam engine.
mncharity 6y ago
> Patents are for non-obvious inventions IIUC, the standard is regrettably non-obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art. "Sure it obvious to her, but she's an expert!" can be a valid defense of patent non-obviousness. :/
- mncharity 6y ago
  Hmm, downvotes? Perhaps because I said "expert"? I used it in the sense of an exceptionally good person in the field, rather than the less-restrictive legal sense, which includes those who are unexceptional, uninventive, and of average qualification. Or perhaps some are unfamiliar with PHOSITA? > A skilled person is typically defined as an expert in a relevant field who has average knowledge and ability but is not exceptional, outstanding, or brilliant. Such a person must be neither over- nor under-qualified and is deemed to be uninventive.[1] > This raises a difficult question of how to define an appropriate benchmark for AI-assisted inventions and whether/how the current standard should incorporate AI. [1] https://ijssppnet.com/file/2.%20%20%20%20Dr%20Olga%20Gurgula.pdf https://ijssppnet.com/file/2.%20%20%20%20Dr%20Olga%20Gurgula...
galkk 6y ago
> The question though is whether some other developer could, given the idea of "1 click buy", create this "invention". I totally disagree with that. There's even apocryphal story that when 1-click purchase was implemented, developer actually couldn't resist of adding "are you sure" message box, because just click and buy is so against typical patterns. I can give another example - socket wrench. Ratcheting wrench was patented on 1863. It took 110 years to invent quick change socket for it, although if you look at it you will say - well, everybody could create that invention.
- andykx 6y ago
  I don’t think that anecdote serves as a good counterpoint. I think that developer was implying that such a button might lead to accidental purchases, not that the concept of clicking a single button to purchase something was some kind of inventive concept. In my opinion, it’s a stupid idea and I think anyone could have come up with it. No one did it because it’s an anti-pattern.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Beldin 6y ago
In my happy little fantasy world, CS patents should lose their validity if a bachelor CS student/group of students can recreate the fundamentals (for a course/thesis project), without knowledge of the patent. 1 click buying probably fails that. I'm on the fence about "lossy compression of audio files using wavelets, based on a psycho-acoustic model of hearing range" (aka mp3)

Retric 6y ago

That’s not really how patents are supposed to work. If you give someone enough constraints almost any patent will seem obvious. The point of patents is when an entire industry is solving a given problem doing X, and someone comes up with a better option then you want that industry to use the better method. To get that swap you need public disclosure in some industries, and to get public disclosure you need incentives. For widely available products that disclosure may consist of the actual object without any patents. But, for say oil refineries people don’t just get to walk around and see what’s what. Having said that the parent system could be changed in a vast number of ways with many tradeoffs. Just consider the wider implications beyond just software or mass produced items.

newsclues 6y ago
Non obvious test? If the patent was never invented and filed, would a child be able to come up with and communicate the idea patented? If one click to buy didn’t exist today, how many children would be able to simply state the obvious solution of one click purchasing?
- TheDong 6y ago
  The actual non-obvious test is not a child, but "a person skilled in the art" (of software in this case). You also are talking about the idea, not the invention. The idea was not patented, the technical invention (effectively flow-charts for how to have a button click trigger an auth cookie check, have databases retrieve credit card numbers, etc), which is not obvious to a child. But, I would argue, the details of the invention would be clear enough to someone skilled in the art, another competent programmer.
jkrems 6y ago
> If give someone enough constraints almost any patent will seem obvious. That seems like a strawperson. The parent said that just given the very rough idea or (I would add) even just the term "1 click buy", somebody could have created a comparable experience without any reference to the patent. That's not "give someone enough constraints". That's "let somebody overhear a customer mention the feature in passing". Suggesting that Amazon wouldn't have invented 1-click buy without patents seems incompatible with good business practices. All my conversations with other developers mentioned a single reason for patenting "random" features at this point: As a way to defend against other people's patents. The only reason _not_ to create a novel feature was that it may be too close to something patented and a lucky lawyer may have argued that it was too close. If anything, software patents actively discourage innovation. I've never heard of anybody implementing a feature by using a patent. I've never heard of somebody developing a novel feature to get a patent. Which means as "patents", they are useless.
- Retric 6y ago
  The actual patent isn’t the same as disclosure. Take RSA encryption for example. People don’t implement it from the patent, but independent invention was extremely rare. People’s implementations generally trace the idea back to Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Leonard Adleman, who publicly described the algorithm in 1977. Yet, overhear the idea in passing and it’s implementation is obvious. Actual secure crypto is much harder than a simple implementation though. RSA is interesting because an equivalent algorithm was independently discovered in 1973 at GCHQ the British signals intelligence agency, and only declassified in 1997. So in effect it’s disclosure not invention that shaped public crypto. I am not saying patents are a great fit for software, but I am saying disclosure in one form or another is.
MikeUt 6y ago
> If give someone enough constraints almost any patent will seem obvious. In the one-click case, it's like getting a patent on the idea of conversion of heat to mechanical motion, then demanding payment from James Watt for his steam engine.

mncharity 6y ago

> Patents are for non-obvious inventions IIUC, the standard is regrettably non-obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art. "Sure it obvious to her, but she's an expert!" can be a valid defense of patent non-obviousness. :/

mncharity 6y ago
Hmm, downvotes? Perhaps because I said "expert"? I used it in the sense of an exceptionally good person in the field, rather than the less-restrictive legal sense, which includes those who are unexceptional, uninventive, and of average qualification. Or perhaps some are unfamiliar with PHOSITA? > A skilled person is typically defined as an expert in a relevant field who has average knowledge and ability but is not exceptional, outstanding, or brilliant. Such a person must be neither over- nor under-qualified and is deemed to be uninventive.[1] > This raises a difficult question of how to define an appropriate benchmark for AI-assisted inventions and whether/how the current standard should incorporate AI. [1] https://ijssppnet.com/file/2.%20%20%20%20Dr%20Olga%20Gurgula.pdf https://ijssppnet.com/file/2.%20%20%20%20Dr%20Olga%20Gurgula...

galkk 6y ago

> The question though is whether some other developer could, given the idea of "1 click buy", create this "invention". I totally disagree with that. There's even apocryphal story that when 1-click purchase was implemented, developer actually couldn't resist of adding "are you sure" message box, because just click and buy is so against typical patterns. I can give another example - socket wrench. Ratcheting wrench was patented on 1863. It took 110 years to invent quick change socket for it, although if you look at it you will say - well, everybody could create that invention.

andykx 6y ago
I don’t think that anecdote serves as a good counterpoint. I think that developer was implying that such a button might lead to accidental purchases, not that the concept of clicking a single button to purchase something was some kind of inventive concept. In my opinion, it’s a stupid idea and I think anyone could have come up with it. No one did it because it’s an anti-pattern.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Beldin 6y ago

In my happy little fantasy world, CS patents should lose their validity if a bachelor CS student/group of students can recreate the fundamentals (for a course/thesis project), without knowledge of the patent. 1 click buying probably fails that. I'm on the fence about "lossy compression of audio files using wavelets, based on a psycho-acoustic model of hearing range" (aka mp3)