4 ms·

This will never happen. Consider a mechanical timer in a washing machine. A timer that produces a novel washing cycle is certainly patentable. Consider a chai

This will never happen. Consider a mechanical timer in a washing machine. A timer that produces a novel washing cycle is certainly patentable. Consider a chain of electromechanical relays that produces the same cycle. Clearly it is just as patentable, and could be covered by a well-written version of the preceding patent. Consider the transistorized version of the preceding, with the relays replaced by transistors. Patentability: ditto. Consider a mask-programmed processor that produces the same cycle. (Mask-programmed means the program is hardwired into a metal pattern.) Patentability: ditto. Consider a flash-programmed version of the preceding that produces the same cycle. Patentability: ditto. Consider a volatile memory version of the preceding that produces the same cycle. Patentability: ditto. Why does this matter? Because in the coming age of nanomachines, "software" will frequently be embodied in custom mechanical machines, chemical reactions, interference patterns of light, and so forth. If software is unpatentable, then neither can you patent the special sauce that turns dirt into nanomachines.

aroberge 15y ago
This argument is simply wrong. You could use the same type of "progression" to get, at the root, basic theoretical physics or pure math. Yet, ideas and concept from these two fields are not patentable.
- bfe 15y ago
  But his examples are all physical embodiments that perform a tangible real-world function. There's no continuous progression between those and pure math.
nate_meurer 15y ago
Your contrived chain of analogies ends in a total strawman. I think you intended the last item on your list to be pure software, but it's not. It's just an electronic version of the first item. No one is arguing that a complete electronic timer should not be patentable. The argument is whether the software alone should be patentable. The software by itself is NOT a timer. The timer's software is only the idea of the timer; it is the instructions, the observation of which allow the physical timer to function. There must still be a physical timer -- an assembly of physical parts that follows programmed instructions to provide a function. That entire assembly is what should be patented. The bare idea of the timer -- the steps that the timer takes while it's working, should not be patentable. That's what the article is proposing. Nowhere in your analogies is bare software addressed.
- Daniel_Newby 15y ago
  I think you intended the last item on your list to be pure software, but it's not. You have hit the crux of the discussion. I am defining software as a tangible thing, existing as a pattern of matter and fields. It is not abstract, virtual, or ineffable. What you are talking about ("pure software") are ideas about the software's principles of operation. The mathematical and logical ideas by which we understand a process are not patentable, but their tangible embodiment (software) is patentable. Consider an example of the difference. Prime numbers are abstract ideas that can be used to create difficult-to-solve problems, and thereby used for cryptography. As abstract ideas, they are not patentable. Someone could embody those ideas in a logic machine (like the RSA algorithm) and patent that. But somebody else could embody those ideas in an analog laser interferometer and patent that, without conflict with the other patent. No one is arguing that a complete electronic timer should not be patentable. And that is exactly what is covered by a valid software patent. Such patents claim something like "Claim 1: A stored-program logic machine, configured to provide the process described in claim 2." The configuration of the logic machine is the software. A well-written patent will cover all variations of the software that are "obvious" to "a person skilled in the art". This generality is why all patents are so painful to evade, not just software patents.
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    > "I am defining software as a tangible thing, existing as a pattern of matter and fields." Ok, but that means you're not talking about software patents any more. The U.S. patent office currently cares nothing about patterns of matter and fields. > "And that [a complete physical timer] is exactly what is covered by a valid software patent." No, wrong. That's how it should be, but it's not, and that's the problem. Officially, patent law isn't supposed to allow patents on "abstract ideas", but due to incomplete guidance from the courts, the requirements have been diluted to nothing. Right now in the U.S., a software patent application can satisfy the requirements by specifying any trivial physical step. Most software patents specify only a "computing device" on which the software is used. Well gee whiz, guess what that covers? You got it, everything! It's useless language; there's no narrowing, no added specificity. It would be just as usefull to specify "software in Her Majesty the Queen's service". As a result, for the past 20 years the USPTO has essentially been granting patents on pure software. A patent on a laser interferometer that encodes instructions is no longer a software patent; that would be covered by a mechanical patent. And this patent certainly would be in conflict with any software patents that covered the software encoded thereby, if the interferometer were ever put to use in a product.
Natsu 15y ago
I believe this is called the continuum fallacy: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Continuum_fallacy https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Continuum_fal...

aroberge 15y ago

This argument is simply wrong. You could use the same type of "progression" to get, at the root, basic theoretical physics or pure math. Yet, ideas and concept from these two fields are not patentable.

bfe 15y ago
But his examples are all physical embodiments that perform a tangible real-world function. There's no continuous progression between those and pure math.

nate_meurer 15y ago

Your contrived chain of analogies ends in a total strawman. I think you intended the last item on your list to be pure software, but it's not. It's just an electronic version of the first item. No one is arguing that a complete electronic timer should not be patentable. The argument is whether the software alone should be patentable. The software by itself is NOT a timer. The timer's software is only the idea of the timer; it is the instructions, the observation of which allow the physical timer to function. There must still be a physical timer -- an assembly of physical parts that follows programmed instructions to provide a function. That entire assembly is what should be patented. The bare idea of the timer -- the steps that the timer takes while it's working, should not be patentable. That's what the article is proposing. Nowhere in your analogies is bare software addressed.

Daniel_Newby 15y ago
I think you intended the last item on your list to be pure software, but it's not. You have hit the crux of the discussion. I am defining software as a tangible thing, existing as a pattern of matter and fields. It is not abstract, virtual, or ineffable. What you are talking about ("pure software") are ideas about the software's principles of operation. The mathematical and logical ideas by which we understand a process are not patentable, but their tangible embodiment (software) is patentable. Consider an example of the difference. Prime numbers are abstract ideas that can be used to create difficult-to-solve problems, and thereby used for cryptography. As abstract ideas, they are not patentable. Someone could embody those ideas in a logic machine (like the RSA algorithm) and patent that. But somebody else could embody those ideas in an analog laser interferometer and patent that, without conflict with the other patent. No one is arguing that a complete electronic timer should not be patentable. And that is exactly what is covered by a valid software patent. Such patents claim something like "Claim 1: A stored-program logic machine, configured to provide the process described in claim 2." The configuration of the logic machine is the software. A well-written patent will cover all variations of the software that are "obvious" to "a person skilled in the art". This generality is why all patents are so painful to evade, not just software patents.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  > "I am defining software as a tangible thing, existing as a pattern of matter and fields." Ok, but that means you're not talking about software patents any more. The U.S. patent office currently cares nothing about patterns of matter and fields. > "And that [a complete physical timer] is exactly what is covered by a valid software patent." No, wrong. That's how it should be, but it's not, and that's the problem. Officially, patent law isn't supposed to allow patents on "abstract ideas", but due to incomplete guidance from the courts, the requirements have been diluted to nothing. Right now in the U.S., a software patent application can satisfy the requirements by specifying any trivial physical step. Most software patents specify only a "computing device" on which the software is used. Well gee whiz, guess what that covers? You got it, everything! It's useless language; there's no narrowing, no added specificity. It would be just as usefull to specify "software in Her Majesty the Queen's service". As a result, for the past 20 years the USPTO has essentially been granting patents on pure software. A patent on a laser interferometer that encodes instructions is no longer a software patent; that would be covered by a mechanical patent. And this patent certainly would be in conflict with any software patents that covered the software encoded thereby, if the interferometer were ever put to use in a product.

Natsu 15y ago

I believe this is called the continuum fallacy: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Continuum_fallacy https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Continuum_fal...