3 ms·

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

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.

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.