6 ms·

To me that whole debacle was one of the biggest examples of the problems with the patent system today. For all intents and purposes Creative patented a mathemat

To me that whole debacle was one of the biggest examples of the problems with the patent system today. For all intents and purposes Creative patented a mathematical formula.

commandar 15y ago
It's worse than that, really. Creative bought a company (3D Labs) that patented a mathematical formula. Creative wasn't even directly responsible for coming up with the technique.
- bryanh 15y ago
  I don't think most people take issue with the fact that patents are purchasable or otherwise transferable. If I create a valid, useful (non-software) patent, I should be able to sell or license it in any way I see fit. The issue is software patents, at least in these circles.
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    >I don't think most people take issue with the fact that patents are purchasable or otherwise transferable. I do, because I object to the absurd concept of ownership over ideas. Software patents just take the absurdity to the utter and bizarre maximum. There is no benefit for humanity to be gained through patents, they merely hinder our technological advancement.
    - rcfox 15y ago
      > There is no benefit for humanity to be gained through patents, they merely hinder our technological advancement. I disagree. There are three alternatives (that come to mind) to patents: 1) Make all information freely accessible to anyone. This is the one we'd all like everyone to do. However, there's very little (economic) incentive to innovate when you do all of the heavy thinking and anyone else can just come along and beat you to the implementation. 2) Stop innovating. If you can't protect your ideas, you might as well just stop trying. 3) Hide your information. Only you can benefit from the information if no one else knows about it. (You can't license information and keep it a secret at the same time!) There are laws to help protect you, but you also have to do a lot of work to protect yourself. You can also keep your information secret indefinitely. By filing a patent, you're telling the world how to do something (allegedly) new. In 20 years, (or longer/shorter, depending on the country) everyone is freely able to use the idea.
      - rgoddard 15y ago
        The problem is, patents are not a repository for searching for solutions and solving problems. If you were to do so, you open yourself for further liability down the road. Not only that, you then harm the person who discovers the same solution independently, even though, your patent did not help them in anyway.
        rcfox 15y ago
        > The problem is, patents are not a repository for searching for solutions and solving problems. Tell that to the generic-brand pharmaceutical companies. ;) > Not only that, you then harm the person who discovers the same solution independently, even though, your patent did not help them in anyway. In the old way, where you had to actually present an implementation of the patented idea, I imagine this would have encouraged inventors to innovate more rapidly. The current system is very broken, and allows patents for things like the perpetual motion machine. (I'd try to provide a link, but engineers shouldn't be looking at patents.) "Oh, you're trying to genuinely improve our lives? Too bad I already came up with the idea in the shower one day and wrote it down before you did! But I'm willing to let you go ahead and try for $40 million."
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        If it can be shown that you can show that you have a history of reading patents, then it can be argued that you wilfully infringed. It certainly makes defense much harder. Patent lawyers generally recommend that engineers NOT read patents for that reason.
        ars 15y ago
        What about reading only expired patents?
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        I don't know, I'm not a patent lawyer myself. I suspect however, that they would advise you this is a risky activity.
  - moheeb 15y ago
    I'd also like to state that I take issue with the fact that patents are purchasable.
    - weego 15y ago
      I'm not sure I can take blanket issue with it, it would make a lot of sense to at least require a company to base their infringement claim on their actual bootstrapped use of the patent methodology i.e. if you cannot demonstrate to a reasonable level that you are using that patent in something that is actively being produced and sold or have done in the past then your claim should be heavily penalized. I appreciate there are lots of loopholes and things to pick at from my wording, but the spirit of the idea is there.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    I don't think most people take issue with the fact that patents are purchasable or otherwise transferable. I disagree -- because patents are government-granted monopolies that are supposed to help the inventor in being the first to market with an actual product, instead of, say -- keeping it as a trade secret or losing in front of bigger competitors that are simply going to copy it. Considering that time and time again there have been inventions, like the telephone, that have been done by independent parties -- the notion of selling it is simply offensive and relies on the electorate being stupid or ignorant or both. What next? Copyrights being used to disallow photos of buildings?
    - bryanh 15y ago
      What next? Copyrights being used to disallow photos of buildings? Misplaced slippery slope argument. The transferable nature of patents in general (or copyrights, since you brought it up) is a totally different subject than patent/copyright violation through abstraction (how far removed is far enough?). The argument covering architectural photography may be better suited for use within the context of the prevailing software patent discussion, where abstraction is quite the core issue.
- runevault 15y ago
  I don't automatically have a problem with the benefit in a patent is selling it to someone else instead of licensing it. I just have a problem with BS patents being issued in the first place.
grannyg00se 15y ago
Like any other patent, it's validity should depend on prior art and sufficient inventiveness. If it's complex enough, and someone else did it first, there's no reason why it shouldn't be patentable the same as any other invention. The problem as I see it, is that people are granting patents for nonsense. When it comes to software they seem to be forgetting all of the rules that apply. For example, I shouldn't be able to patent a radio button these days. But the equivalent of that seems to happen. It's not the system's fault. The system already has rules in place to prevent that. Fault lies with the person who doesn't do the research and cite the prior art and then deny the patent. I'm not sure how complicated Carmack's Reverse is, but if it's something that anybody "skilled in the art" could come up with after a bit of thought then the patent should not have been granted. On the other hand, if the formula took months of work and provides a benefit and is not trivial, then just as any similarly complicated mechanical device (like a gearing system) can be patented, so should this.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  > "If it's complex enough, and someone else did it first, there's no reason why it shouldn't be patentable the same as any other invention." IMO a patent needs to go further than this. The whole point of the patent system is to preserve the incentive to invest in technologies. If I spent my life's fortune inventing GizmoWidget, and my neighbor can just reverse engineer one and set up his own factory... my incentive to invest is gone. And these situations still exist - particularly in traditional engineering fields where the costs of prototyping, testing, and certification are enormous. But really, what are the costs of sitting down for a few weeks and cooking up a new mathematical formula? I'd argue that being first to market while your competitors are scratching their heads is well worth the investment - given how little cost it presented to yourself. IMO patentability should not be focused on how complex the system is or how trivial it was to derive - it should be based on how much it is reasonably expected to cost to develop. That is, after all, why the system exists.

To me that whole debacle was one of the biggest examples of the problems with the patent system today. For all intents and purposes Creative patented a mathematical formula.

commandar 15y ago

It's worse than that, really. Creative bought a company (3D Labs) that patented a mathematical formula. Creative wasn't even directly responsible for coming up with the technique.

bryanh 15y ago
I don't think most people take issue with the fact that patents are purchasable or otherwise transferable. If I create a valid, useful (non-software) patent, I should be able to sell or license it in any way I see fit. The issue is software patents, at least in these circles.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  >I don't think most people take issue with the fact that patents are purchasable or otherwise transferable. I do, because I object to the absurd concept of ownership over ideas. Software patents just take the absurdity to the utter and bizarre maximum. There is no benefit for humanity to be gained through patents, they merely hinder our technological advancement.
  - rcfox 15y ago
    > There is no benefit for humanity to be gained through patents, they merely hinder our technological advancement. I disagree. There are three alternatives (that come to mind) to patents: 1) Make all information freely accessible to anyone. This is the one we'd all like everyone to do. However, there's very little (economic) incentive to innovate when you do all of the heavy thinking and anyone else can just come along and beat you to the implementation. 2) Stop innovating. If you can't protect your ideas, you might as well just stop trying. 3) Hide your information. Only you can benefit from the information if no one else knows about it. (You can't license information and keep it a secret at the same time!) There are laws to help protect you, but you also have to do a lot of work to protect yourself. You can also keep your information secret indefinitely. By filing a patent, you're telling the world how to do something (allegedly) new. In 20 years, (or longer/shorter, depending on the country) everyone is freely able to use the idea.
    - rgoddard 15y ago
      The problem is, patents are not a repository for searching for solutions and solving problems. If you were to do so, you open yourself for further liability down the road. Not only that, you then harm the person who discovers the same solution independently, even though, your patent did not help them in anyway.
      - rcfox 15y ago
        > The problem is, patents are not a repository for searching for solutions and solving problems. Tell that to the generic-brand pharmaceutical companies. ;) > Not only that, you then harm the person who discovers the same solution independently, even though, your patent did not help them in anyway. In the old way, where you had to actually present an implementation of the patented idea, I imagine this would have encouraged inventors to innovate more rapidly. The current system is very broken, and allows patents for things like the perpetual motion machine. (I'd try to provide a link, but engineers shouldn't be looking at patents.) "Oh, you're trying to genuinely improve our lives? Too bad I already came up with the idea in the shower one day and wrote it down before you did! But I'm willing to let you go ahead and try for $40 million."
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        If it can be shown that you can show that you have a history of reading patents, then it can be argued that you wilfully infringed. It certainly makes defense much harder. Patent lawyers generally recommend that engineers NOT read patents for that reason.
        ars 15y ago
        What about reading only expired patents?
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        I don't know, I'm not a patent lawyer myself. I suspect however, that they would advise you this is a risky activity.
- moheeb 15y ago
  I'd also like to state that I take issue with the fact that patents are purchasable.
  - weego 15y ago
    I'm not sure I can take blanket issue with it, it would make a lot of sense to at least require a company to base their infringement claim on their actual bootstrapped use of the patent methodology i.e. if you cannot demonstrate to a reasonable level that you are using that patent in something that is actively being produced and sold or have done in the past then your claim should be heavily penalized. I appreciate there are lots of loopholes and things to pick at from my wording, but the spirit of the idea is there.
- bad_user 15y ago
  I don't think most people take issue with the fact that patents are purchasable or otherwise transferable. I disagree -- because patents are government-granted monopolies that are supposed to help the inventor in being the first to market with an actual product, instead of, say -- keeping it as a trade secret or losing in front of bigger competitors that are simply going to copy it. Considering that time and time again there have been inventions, like the telephone, that have been done by independent parties -- the notion of selling it is simply offensive and relies on the electorate being stupid or ignorant or both. What next? Copyrights being used to disallow photos of buildings?
  - bryanh 15y ago
    What next? Copyrights being used to disallow photos of buildings? Misplaced slippery slope argument. The transferable nature of patents in general (or copyrights, since you brought it up) is a totally different subject than patent/copyright violation through abstraction (how far removed is far enough?). The argument covering architectural photography may be better suited for use within the context of the prevailing software patent discussion, where abstraction is quite the core issue.
runevault 15y ago
I don't automatically have a problem with the benefit in a patent is selling it to someone else instead of licensing it. I just have a problem with BS patents being issued in the first place.

grannyg00se 15y ago

Like any other patent, it's validity should depend on prior art and sufficient inventiveness. If it's complex enough, and someone else did it first, there's no reason why it shouldn't be patentable the same as any other invention. The problem as I see it, is that people are granting patents for nonsense. When it comes to software they seem to be forgetting all of the rules that apply. For example, I shouldn't be able to patent a radio button these days. But the equivalent of that seems to happen. It's not the system's fault. The system already has rules in place to prevent that. Fault lies with the person who doesn't do the research and cite the prior art and then deny the patent. I'm not sure how complicated Carmack's Reverse is, but if it's something that anybody "skilled in the art" could come up with after a bit of thought then the patent should not have been granted. On the other hand, if the formula took months of work and provides a benefit and is not trivial, then just as any similarly complicated mechanical device (like a gearing system) can be patented, so should this.

potatolicious 15y ago
> "If it's complex enough, and someone else did it first, there's no reason why it shouldn't be patentable the same as any other invention." IMO a patent needs to go further than this. The whole point of the patent system is to preserve the incentive to invest in technologies. If I spent my life's fortune inventing GizmoWidget, and my neighbor can just reverse engineer one and set up his own factory... my incentive to invest is gone. And these situations still exist - particularly in traditional engineering fields where the costs of prototyping, testing, and certification are enormous. But really, what are the costs of sitting down for a few weeks and cooking up a new mathematical formula? I'd argue that being first to market while your competitors are scratching their heads is well worth the investment - given how little cost it presented to yourself. IMO patentability should not be focused on how complex the system is or how trivial it was to derive - it should be based on how much it is reasonably expected to cost to develop. That is, after all, why the system exists.