5 ms·

The core problem is that for someone knowledgeable in the field, everything becomes straightforward, but the further away you are from the field, the more novel

by esens 5y ago

The core problem is that for someone knowledgeable in the field, everything becomes straightforward, but the further away you are from the field, the more novel it becomes -- this is true across the board. Even the great accomplishments where people win Nobel prizes, often it can be argued that it was going to happen anyhow because it was the next step in scientific progress given the context. Thus defining "non-obviousness" is super hard to do -- because it is all context dependent and humans are like a million monkeys inventing everything that can possibly be invented in aggregate.

elektronaut1 5y ago
And this years Nobel prize goes to ... for securing the funding to do the research
josho 5y ago
Controlling volume to a set of speakers via a remote is something we’ve been doing in the analog world for decades. So a general patent on volume control across speakers should be invalidated. It only becomes novel due to the details of the tech. But even then you could implement the solution in various ways and I can’t imagine every potential method was patented. So, while I agree the non-obvious can be hard to define. But with patents like this I don’t think we’ve found the right balance.
- VikingCoder 5y ago
  At a previous company, we had to _add code_ to our software in order to avoid violating a patent. Yes, if we just let our system do what it could, that violated a patent. We had to check for a certain condition, and disallow the generic system from doing a specific thing, in order to not get in trouble. Sorry, but that's insane.
  - simplestats 5y ago
    I dealt with a manufacturing patent where you had to align certain parts off-center, because lining them up was patented. Of course it didn't really matter how you did it. Hence a subsequent patent was eventually actually awarded to someone else to manufacture them off-center. Which was far worse if you think about it. The first patent claimed a unique point. The next one claimed the entire three-dimensional volume of possible alternatives--minus that unique point.
    - VikingCoder 5y ago
      I always want people to patent TERRIBLE ideas, to prevent game companies from implementing them.
- tssva 5y ago
  The patent in questions covers using a controller device on a LAN which presents a UI to the user to raise, lower or mute/unmute volume which then raises, lowers or mutes/unmutes the volume across a set of speakers grouped together on the LAN. It does not cover a specific method of doing this. Any method accomplishes the above would be covered by the patent.
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    I feel like "using a UI that communicates over LAN", on it's own, isn't something that should be patentable for anything at this point. That's just basic network communication now. Now, if the device being communicated with did something interesting maybe there is a case on that end, but I'm not familiar enough to comment.
- onphonenow 5y ago
  Seriously, how in the WORLD is this patentable. Movie theatres, stadiums, high end home AV has all had this forever. What a trash headline too. "Google doesn't want to pay for Sonos technology"... What innovation is this? Speaker groups - has no one used a high end AV system. Zone A Zone B etc, and you have a remote etc for all this?
betterunix2 5y ago
It is not true that anyone knowledgeable in a field finds everything in that field straightforward. For example, Schoof's algorithm for counting points on elliptic curves was so non-obvious to relevant experts that he struggled to get his paper through peer review. Diffie also struggled to get his ideas about public-key cryptography published because experts in relevant fields did not understand how such an idea could even make sense. Another example is Gentry's original FHE construction, which was not at all obvious even to experts in lattice theory or any other relevant field of cryptography or math. It pains me to say this, but Bitcoin is also an example; check out the response on the cryptography mailing list, where several prominent experts in the field were confused by the concept of electronic payments that do not require any bank to issue and redeem the money. Those are just what I know off the top of my head from my own field. While there is plenty of incremental research in any field and plenty of situations where a motivated expert would have arrived at the same basic concept, it is not outlandishly uncommon for a truly novel, non-obvious idea to be presented. The problem for patent examiners is that they are not experts and the pace of software innovation leaves them baffled by the applications they are examining; there are also too few patent examiners to handle the volume of applications that are submitted. One way to address the problem is to just abolish software patents entirely. Software was never meant to be patentable, at least not if you recognize software as a form of applied math (happy to argue this one all day long) and accept the idea that math is not (or should not be) patentable.
nathanyz 5y ago
A lot of things once explained seem obvious, but clearly weren't or they would have existed before. I like to explain it as similar to wheels being circles. Of course that is obvious once you see a circle shaped wheel, but the insight to do that in the first place is the novelty element. Similar advances are happening in every little niche industry and novelty implies non-obvious.
- dpark 5y ago
  The problem is that things that are already well known and obvious are being granted patents because “but with software” gets tacked onto the end. “Control a group of speakers” - not patentable “Control a group of speakers, but with software” - patentable Maybe there’s some really interesting way Sonos controls speakers with software that should be patentable. But “with software” is not novel on its own.
- emj 5y ago
  It's about costs, networked speakers for pro-consumers was never a thing it was just too expensive. Until it wasn't and then you obviously had to controll them together.
- simplestats 5y ago
  This is certainly the ideal scenario. But typically, they didn't exist before because they are incremental improvements based on things which didn't exist before and use technology which didn't exist before. The claim that they are obvious is based on the fact that anyone who is involved in the production of those prior incremental steps can see what can be done as the next increment. People are working on producing wheels using molds and certain materials. Across town, someone starts selling a new kind of mold or material. The "inventor" applies it to the molding of wheels.
  - nathanyz 5y ago
    The difficulty is that it is really hard to claim something as obvious/non-obvious once you know about it. Basically can't determine if it is something that was incremental based on progress -or- if it just seems like that now that you know about it in hindsight. Agree with your point though, and it may just be one of those impossible questions which is why the patent office struggles with how to make these decisions.
phicoh 5y ago
I think the test is simple: give a bunch of experts the claims in the patent and not how the patent implements the claim. If the experts can find a way to implement the claim in a relatively short period, then the claim is obvious and should be rejected. Of course it is possible that a more specific claim is not obvisous. For example, if there are specific performance requirements. If the initial claims are obvisious, the inventor can try again with more narrow claims. Another requirement that is sorely needed is that an expert in the field can actually understand the patent in a reasonable period of time.
- onphonenow 5y ago
  This is actually a FANTASTIC idea!
- dusted 5y ago
  that's not really going to work though.. there have been (and must still be) tons of "obvious" solutions to well-known problems.. So if you could simply "give a bunch of experts the claims in the patent" and have them actually come up with something.. Well, then it'd be trivial to simply rewrite existing unsolved problems in "claim of method to solve problem" and they'd magically be able to solve it? The problem is that obvious solutions become obvious only when they arrive, and not before. Even framing a problem so that it can be solved is an example of this.. There are lots of problems that only appear after their solution. Before the solution, they weren't problems, but simply "how things are". Like, right now, we've not solved death, so for most people, it's not really a problem, it's just how things are.. If we solve death, future people will look back at us in disbelief: (You try to tell me people just DIED? and the entire world didn't unite to fix that? what the fuck was wrong with them? guess they got what they deserved..)
  - phicoh 5y ago
    I'm just saying, that if your claims have obvious solutions, then the community has no need for your patent. The patent has to solve something that is not obvious. For the community, it is only worth granting a patent if the community gets something back in return. And that is, solving a problem we don't know how to solve. Obviously, that can be with efficiency parameters. If the simple solution is 50% efficient and the patent claims 90%. That may be worth the patent. And everybody else can keep using the 50% efficient solution. In your example, if you now come up with a patent that solves death, then no expert will be able to find a solution in reasonable period. If you can then show a working version that solves death, even if it is completely obvious in retrospect, it is worth a patent.

by esens 5y ago

elektronaut1 5y ago

And this years Nobel prize goes to ... for securing the funding to do the research

josho 5y ago

Controlling volume to a set of speakers via a remote is something we’ve been doing in the analog world for decades. So a general patent on volume control across speakers should be invalidated. It only becomes novel due to the details of the tech. But even then you could implement the solution in various ways and I can’t imagine every potential method was patented. So, while I agree the non-obvious can be hard to define. But with patents like this I don’t think we’ve found the right balance.

VikingCoder 5y ago
At a previous company, we had to _add code_ to our software in order to avoid violating a patent. Yes, if we just let our system do what it could, that violated a patent. We had to check for a certain condition, and disallow the generic system from doing a specific thing, in order to not get in trouble. Sorry, but that's insane.
- simplestats 5y ago
  I dealt with a manufacturing patent where you had to align certain parts off-center, because lining them up was patented. Of course it didn't really matter how you did it. Hence a subsequent patent was eventually actually awarded to someone else to manufacture them off-center. Which was far worse if you think about it. The first patent claimed a unique point. The next one claimed the entire three-dimensional volume of possible alternatives--minus that unique point.
  - VikingCoder 5y ago
    I always want people to patent TERRIBLE ideas, to prevent game companies from implementing them.
tssva 5y ago
The patent in questions covers using a controller device on a LAN which presents a UI to the user to raise, lower or mute/unmute volume which then raises, lowers or mutes/unmutes the volume across a set of speakers grouped together on the LAN. It does not cover a specific method of doing this. Any method accomplishes the above would be covered by the patent.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  I feel like "using a UI that communicates over LAN", on it's own, isn't something that should be patentable for anything at this point. That's just basic network communication now. Now, if the device being communicated with did something interesting maybe there is a case on that end, but I'm not familiar enough to comment.
onphonenow 5y ago
Seriously, how in the WORLD is this patentable. Movie theatres, stadiums, high end home AV has all had this forever. What a trash headline too. "Google doesn't want to pay for Sonos technology"... What innovation is this? Speaker groups - has no one used a high end AV system. Zone A Zone B etc, and you have a remote etc for all this?

betterunix2 5y ago

It is not true that anyone knowledgeable in a field finds everything in that field straightforward. For example, Schoof's algorithm for counting points on elliptic curves was so non-obvious to relevant experts that he struggled to get his paper through peer review. Diffie also struggled to get his ideas about public-key cryptography published because experts in relevant fields did not understand how such an idea could even make sense. Another example is Gentry's original FHE construction, which was not at all obvious even to experts in lattice theory or any other relevant field of cryptography or math. It pains me to say this, but Bitcoin is also an example; check out the response on the cryptography mailing list, where several prominent experts in the field were confused by the concept of electronic payments that do not require any bank to issue and redeem the money. Those are just what I know off the top of my head from my own field. While there is plenty of incremental research in any field and plenty of situations where a motivated expert would have arrived at the same basic concept, it is not outlandishly uncommon for a truly novel, non-obvious idea to be presented. The problem for patent examiners is that they are not experts and the pace of software innovation leaves them baffled by the applications they are examining; there are also too few patent examiners to handle the volume of applications that are submitted. One way to address the problem is to just abolish software patents entirely. Software was never meant to be patentable, at least not if you recognize software as a form of applied math (happy to argue this one all day long) and accept the idea that math is not (or should not be) patentable.

nathanyz 5y ago

A lot of things once explained seem obvious, but clearly weren't or they would have existed before. I like to explain it as similar to wheels being circles. Of course that is obvious once you see a circle shaped wheel, but the insight to do that in the first place is the novelty element. Similar advances are happening in every little niche industry and novelty implies non-obvious.

dpark 5y ago
The problem is that things that are already well known and obvious are being granted patents because “but with software” gets tacked onto the end. “Control a group of speakers” - not patentable “Control a group of speakers, but with software” - patentable Maybe there’s some really interesting way Sonos controls speakers with software that should be patentable. But “with software” is not novel on its own.
emj 5y ago
It's about costs, networked speakers for pro-consumers was never a thing it was just too expensive. Until it wasn't and then you obviously had to controll them together.
simplestats 5y ago
This is certainly the ideal scenario. But typically, they didn't exist before because they are incremental improvements based on things which didn't exist before and use technology which didn't exist before. The claim that they are obvious is based on the fact that anyone who is involved in the production of those prior incremental steps can see what can be done as the next increment. People are working on producing wheels using molds and certain materials. Across town, someone starts selling a new kind of mold or material. The "inventor" applies it to the molding of wheels.
- nathanyz 5y ago
  The difficulty is that it is really hard to claim something as obvious/non-obvious once you know about it. Basically can't determine if it is something that was incremental based on progress -or- if it just seems like that now that you know about it in hindsight. Agree with your point though, and it may just be one of those impossible questions which is why the patent office struggles with how to make these decisions.

phicoh 5y ago

I think the test is simple: give a bunch of experts the claims in the patent and not how the patent implements the claim. If the experts can find a way to implement the claim in a relatively short period, then the claim is obvious and should be rejected. Of course it is possible that a more specific claim is not obvisous. For example, if there are specific performance requirements. If the initial claims are obvisious, the inventor can try again with more narrow claims. Another requirement that is sorely needed is that an expert in the field can actually understand the patent in a reasonable period of time.

onphonenow 5y ago
This is actually a FANTASTIC idea!
dusted 5y ago
that's not really going to work though.. there have been (and must still be) tons of "obvious" solutions to well-known problems.. So if you could simply "give a bunch of experts the claims in the patent" and have them actually come up with something.. Well, then it'd be trivial to simply rewrite existing unsolved problems in "claim of method to solve problem" and they'd magically be able to solve it? The problem is that obvious solutions become obvious only when they arrive, and not before. Even framing a problem so that it can be solved is an example of this.. There are lots of problems that only appear after their solution. Before the solution, they weren't problems, but simply "how things are". Like, right now, we've not solved death, so for most people, it's not really a problem, it's just how things are.. If we solve death, future people will look back at us in disbelief: (You try to tell me people just DIED? and the entire world didn't unite to fix that? what the fuck was wrong with them? guess they got what they deserved..)
- phicoh 5y ago
  I'm just saying, that if your claims have obvious solutions, then the community has no need for your patent. The patent has to solve something that is not obvious. For the community, it is only worth granting a patent if the community gets something back in return. And that is, solving a problem we don't know how to solve. Obviously, that can be with efficiency parameters. If the simple solution is 50% efficient and the patent claims 90%. That may be worth the patent. And everybody else can keep using the 50% efficient solution. In your example, if you now come up with a patent that solves death, then no expert will be able to find a solution in reasonable period. If you can then show a working version that solves death, even if it is completely obvious in retrospect, it is worth a patent.