4 ms·

Your question assumes two things that I haven't said, implied and are simply untrue. I'm not sure if that's due to a misunderstanding on your part or a lack of

Your question assumes two things that I haven't said, implied and are simply untrue. I'm not sure if that's due to a misunderstanding on your part or a lack of clarity on my part. First, it assumes that we want to be protected against "others independently developing a similar algorithm". Second, it assumes that I "believe that my company deserves to be protected" from such other people. We're not concerned about other people independently developing a similar algorithm as it's rather non-trivial and as I mentioned, it took an awful lot of effort to develop it. We're much more concerned about the very real problem that people (e.g. competitors) will use our research and work. As for your second assumption, personally (and I'm not representing my employer here) I don't believe that we have the moral right to be protected from other people doing their research independently who reach the same results. In lights of all this, I really don't know how to answer your question.

mcantor 15y ago
"I'm not sure if that's due to a misunderstanding on your part or a lack of clarity on my part." These are merely two perspectives from which we can view the same phenomenon.
naner 15y ago
We're much more concerned about the very real problem that people (e.g. competitors) will use our research and work. How is that plausible? Aren't these trade secrets? Is your research/work publicly visible?
- edanm 15y ago
  Seriously? They sell the product to customers, other people spend a small amount of time reverse-engineering how it was done, and copy it.
  - seats 15y ago
    I bet he assumed a product as a service, where the code isn't in the hands of the customer.
fauigerzigerk 15y ago
I was asking this question because protection against others independently developing a similar algorithm is what the patent system provides, and that's why many people, including myself, are opposed to it. I wasn't assuming that you personally or even your employer actually wanted that kind of protection. So my rather rhetorical question was intended to highlight that discrepancy. You want to prevent others from copying your work but what you do by patenting it is more than that. You prevent others from making or benefiting from their own original invention. Of course, as long as software patents exist, you don't have much choice.
- qq66 15y ago
  What about this is unique to software patents? I don't understand the "destroy software patents" crusade. "Destroy all patents" makes sense, and "improve all patents" makes sense, but why are software patents any different than device or chemical patents?
  - fauigerzigerk 15y ago
    My main point is not limited to software patents, it's just more striking in this area because the drawbacks of patents are so clearly demonstrated every day. And contrary to other disciplines, copyright covers a lot of ground when it comes to software. But to understand what might make software special you have to look no further than the things that are currently not patentable and never have been, like mathematical approaches and business processes. So, for instance, if you invent some data mining approach based on graph theory and you write your formulas on a piece of paper or into your matlab or R worksheet you cannot patent it. If you express the same ideas in a couple of C functions you can patent it. Another example. Say you are the first to have the idea of selling coke and sandwiches at gas stations. You cannot patent it. But if you are the first to have the idea of selling avatars from within some computer game, you can patent it. Why is that? The differentiation between patentable and non patentable types of approaches and ideas is not something that was invented by software patent crusaders. It's right there in the law already.
- MaysonL 15y ago
  The trouble is that it's a lot easier to copy an algorithm without in any way violating copyright than it is to copy it without violating a patent on it.
mbesto 15y ago
To that same token... Let's say company A and company B create the exact same alogorithim in the exact same time. Company A markets it much better and effectively "wins" the market. Should their success be determined by purely R&D alone? Since this is a rather unrealistic (albeit becoming more and more realistic) situation. Imagine a slightly more realistic scenario. Company A starts R&D day 1 and finishes day 100. Company B starts R&D day 50 and finishes day 125. But Company B has better management, marketing, etc. and (again) effectively wins the market. Who gets precedence? > We're much more concerned about the very real problem that people (e.g. competitors) will use our research and work. So why don't you just keep it secret? Is this ultimately the question?
ams6110 15y ago
We're not concerned about other people independently developing a similar algorithm as it's rather non-trivial and as I mentioned, it took an awful lot of effort to develop it. We're much more concerned about the very real problem that people (e.g. competitors) will use our research and work. Then what you do is keep your algorithm as a trade secret. The point of a patent is to publicize the invention so that others may benefit, and in compensation to the inventor they get a period of protection on its use so that they may license the invention and recoup R&D costs.
nitrogen 15y ago
If your algorithm is non-trivial, wouldn't it be better protected by trade secret law? Patent law ostensibly requires you to disclose the algorithm (though patent attorneys seem to be very good at avoiding that), which would allow your competitors to develop competitive, but non-infringing algorithms. If your algorithm is so far ahead of everybody else, they don't stand a chance if you just keep it to yourselves, right?

mcantor 15y ago

"I'm not sure if that's due to a misunderstanding on your part or a lack of clarity on my part." These are merely two perspectives from which we can view the same phenomenon.

naner 15y ago

We're much more concerned about the very real problem that people (e.g. competitors) will use our research and work. How is that plausible? Aren't these trade secrets? Is your research/work publicly visible?

edanm 15y ago
Seriously? They sell the product to customers, other people spend a small amount of time reverse-engineering how it was done, and copy it.
- seats 15y ago
  I bet he assumed a product as a service, where the code isn't in the hands of the customer.

fauigerzigerk 15y ago

I was asking this question because protection against others independently developing a similar algorithm is what the patent system provides, and that's why many people, including myself, are opposed to it. I wasn't assuming that you personally or even your employer actually wanted that kind of protection. So my rather rhetorical question was intended to highlight that discrepancy. You want to prevent others from copying your work but what you do by patenting it is more than that. You prevent others from making or benefiting from their own original invention. Of course, as long as software patents exist, you don't have much choice.

qq66 15y ago
What about this is unique to software patents? I don't understand the "destroy software patents" crusade. "Destroy all patents" makes sense, and "improve all patents" makes sense, but why are software patents any different than device or chemical patents?
- fauigerzigerk 15y ago
  My main point is not limited to software patents, it's just more striking in this area because the drawbacks of patents are so clearly demonstrated every day. And contrary to other disciplines, copyright covers a lot of ground when it comes to software. But to understand what might make software special you have to look no further than the things that are currently not patentable and never have been, like mathematical approaches and business processes. So, for instance, if you invent some data mining approach based on graph theory and you write your formulas on a piece of paper or into your matlab or R worksheet you cannot patent it. If you express the same ideas in a couple of C functions you can patent it. Another example. Say you are the first to have the idea of selling coke and sandwiches at gas stations. You cannot patent it. But if you are the first to have the idea of selling avatars from within some computer game, you can patent it. Why is that? The differentiation between patentable and non patentable types of approaches and ideas is not something that was invented by software patent crusaders. It's right there in the law already.
MaysonL 15y ago
The trouble is that it's a lot easier to copy an algorithm without in any way violating copyright than it is to copy it without violating a patent on it.

mbesto 15y ago

To that same token... Let's say company A and company B create the exact same alogorithim in the exact same time. Company A markets it much better and effectively "wins" the market. Should their success be determined by purely R&D alone? Since this is a rather unrealistic (albeit becoming more and more realistic) situation. Imagine a slightly more realistic scenario. Company A starts R&D day 1 and finishes day 100. Company B starts R&D day 50 and finishes day 125. But Company B has better management, marketing, etc. and (again) effectively wins the market. Who gets precedence? > We're much more concerned about the very real problem that people (e.g. competitors) will use our research and work. So why don't you just keep it secret? Is this ultimately the question?

ams6110 15y ago

We're not concerned about other people independently developing a similar algorithm as it's rather non-trivial and as I mentioned, it took an awful lot of effort to develop it. We're much more concerned about the very real problem that people (e.g. competitors) will use our research and work. Then what you do is keep your algorithm as a trade secret. The point of a patent is to publicize the invention so that others may benefit, and in compensation to the inventor they get a period of protection on its use so that they may license the invention and recoup R&D costs.

nitrogen 15y ago

If your algorithm is non-trivial, wouldn't it be better protected by trade secret law? Patent law ostensibly requires you to disclose the algorithm (though patent attorneys seem to be very good at avoiding that), which would allow your competitors to develop competitive, but non-infringing algorithms. If your algorithm is so far ahead of everybody else, they don't stand a chance if you just keep it to yourselves, right?