3 ms·

Judges have NO IDEA how to interpret patents. I would claim that EVERY MACHINE is reducable to a (software) simulation, and that every software simulation can

by mckoss 15y ago

Judges have NO IDEA how to interpret patents. I would claim that EVERY MACHINE is reducable to a (software) simulation, and that every software simulation can be (in theory) executed by the human mind with paper and pencil. While you could argue that the claims in this case are obvious, I find the reasoning used here to be contrary to ANY patent being issued for any machine or process.

kylewpppd 15y ago
I would find your claim to be slightly outlandish. Even if we assume that you could simulate anything known to humankind with software, you would still need to invent a thing to properly simulate it.
- mckoss 15y ago
  I'm not claiming I could INVENT any machine with a software process. Only that one could take any patent granted for a machine, and build a total software simulation for the described machine. By the judges' logic in this ruling, the software simulation of the machine is unpatentable. But what's the difference if the machine is implemented with atoms instead of bits?
cperciva 15y ago
... and this is why logicians tend to make poor lawyers. It doesn't matter if an argument is logically sound; what matters is whether the argument is convincing, and saying "sure I can do this with pencil and paper... it will only take a hundred billion years" isn't going to convince anyone.
buff-a 15y ago
Simulating a steam engine in your head doesn't actually pump water out of coal mines. However, "simulating" checking an IP address against a list produces exactly the same thing as the claimed invention: information. If your patent produces information then you're pretty much fucked. And rightly so.
- 6ren 15y ago
  If checking the IP leads to a result, such as blocking the user, it could not be simulated with paper and pencil. e.g. Amazon's infamous one-click purchase patent could not be simulated with paper and pencil. One nice quality of this test is it makes the patent less abstract, more concrete, and therefore less broadly applicable: one of the arguments for mathematical algorithms not be patentable is that they are too general, and a monopoly on them would block too much.
  - buff-a 15y ago
    (IANAL. This is my opinion. Welcome to correct me.) If checking the IP leads to a result, such as blocking the user "blocking the user". What does that mean? It means not giving the user what they asked for. It is absolutely doable with pen and paper, because the "user" is being "blocked" from "information". But even if that were not the case: suppose it where a physical door being locked or unlocked. Well done, you've just attempted to patent a fucking bouncer. Basically you can patent inventive things. But if your patent can't stand on its own if the computer part is replaced with a human operator, then it wont stand. Amazon's oneclick travesty is totally doable on pen and paper and I hope someone will have another go at it.
    - 6ren 15y ago
      It has to also be inventive. The above is just an extra hurdle to disqualify claims that only produce information. BTW: you can't block a user with pen and paper. You can obtain information for your decision to block them, but pen and paper, in isolation, have no impact on the world. Even something like a signed contract, PO etc has no effect, unless it is used in part of a system. If this doesn't make sense to you, recall that we're talking about the claims in the patent: of course, you can use pen and paper to do many things, but in a patent, it's not enough to claim you can work out the information with pen and paper; you have to also claim what you will do with that information.

by mckoss 15y ago

kylewpppd 15y ago

I would find your claim to be slightly outlandish. Even if we assume that you could simulate anything known to humankind with software, you would still need to invent a thing to properly simulate it.

mckoss 15y ago
I'm not claiming I could INVENT any machine with a software process. Only that one could take any patent granted for a machine, and build a total software simulation for the described machine. By the judges' logic in this ruling, the software simulation of the machine is unpatentable. But what's the difference if the machine is implemented with atoms instead of bits?

cperciva 15y ago

... and this is why logicians tend to make poor lawyers. It doesn't matter if an argument is logically sound; what matters is whether the argument is convincing, and saying "sure I can do this with pencil and paper... it will only take a hundred billion years" isn't going to convince anyone.

buff-a 15y ago

Simulating a steam engine in your head doesn't actually pump water out of coal mines. However, "simulating" checking an IP address against a list produces exactly the same thing as the claimed invention: information. If your patent produces information then you're pretty much fucked. And rightly so.

6ren 15y ago
If checking the IP leads to a result, such as blocking the user, it could not be simulated with paper and pencil. e.g. Amazon's infamous one-click purchase patent could not be simulated with paper and pencil. One nice quality of this test is it makes the patent less abstract, more concrete, and therefore less broadly applicable: one of the arguments for mathematical algorithms not be patentable is that they are too general, and a monopoly on them would block too much.
- buff-a 15y ago
  (IANAL. This is my opinion. Welcome to correct me.) If checking the IP leads to a result, such as blocking the user "blocking the user". What does that mean? It means not giving the user what they asked for. It is absolutely doable with pen and paper, because the "user" is being "blocked" from "information". But even if that were not the case: suppose it where a physical door being locked or unlocked. Well done, you've just attempted to patent a fucking bouncer. Basically you can patent inventive things. But if your patent can't stand on its own if the computer part is replaced with a human operator, then it wont stand. Amazon's oneclick travesty is totally doable on pen and paper and I hope someone will have another go at it.
  - 6ren 15y ago
    It has to also be inventive. The above is just an extra hurdle to disqualify claims that only produce information. BTW: you can't block a user with pen and paper. You can obtain information for your decision to block them, but pen and paper, in isolation, have no impact on the world. Even something like a signed contract, PO etc has no effect, unless it is used in part of a system. If this doesn't make sense to you, recall that we're talking about the claims in the patent: of course, you can use pen and paper to do many things, but in a patent, it's not enough to claim you can work out the information with pen and paper; you have to also claim what you will do with that information.