3 ms·

I wonder i somebody took a time to really read what the petition says. The title is anti-sofware patents but the body is more complicated: "The patent office's

by vadiml 15y ago

I wonder i somebody took a time to really read what the petition says. The title is anti-sofware patents but the body is more complicated: "The patent office's original interpretation of software as language and therefor patentable is much closer to reality and more productive for innovation than it's current practice of issuing software patents with no understanding of the patents being issued". I think it should read: "The patent office's original interpretation of software as language and therefor not patentable is much closer to reality and more productive for innovation than it's current practice of issuing software patents with no understanding of the patents being issued." Or am I missing something?

nextparadigms 15y ago
I wonder if the creator of the petition even noticed the mistake, or he can't edit it anymore. Would that be a real problem giving the title and some of the body are clearly anti-software patents?
- Lost_BiomedE 15y ago
  Yes, the creator posted in another thread that that they wont let him edit it. He also said it was accidentally sent prematurely before a good proof-read, due to the system not being intuitive to him at the moment.
shareme 15y ago
No that is generally how the whitehouse miss-writes laws issued..just wait for the over-correction being worse than the original
alain94040 15y ago
Exactly. I didn't sign it because I read the text, had no clue what it meant, so I refused to sign, despite the name. And I wrote patents and experienced firsthand the fun of patent litigation. My position is closer to Jonathan Abrams' tweet: tell the USPTO to stop issuing obvious patents, no matter what form.
grannyg00se 15y ago
For me the problem is that there is frequently "no understanding of the patents being issued". Aside from that, if you are attempting to patent an idea or process I don't see why software should be treated differently than hardware.
- TruthElixirX 15y ago
  Because software can already be copyrighted.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Surely software copyright prevents reusing of the same source code, but not a different implementation of the same algorithm?
    - thehotdon 15y ago
      Yes, and that's how it should be. Mathematics, including algorithms, is not patentable.
      - grannyg00se 15y ago
        Why shouldn't they be patentable. If your company spends money and time comig up with a novel way to sort or search or compress information, why should you not be afforded the same protections as a company that came up with a novel way to store energy, or convert energy?
        slowpoke 15y ago
        The "time and money" argument (financial incentive to innovate) is as old as it is irrelevant. Frankly, I don't care if you can't make money off the monopoly rents of an abstract concept (and I'm offended that you think I should). What I care about is you thinking you are entitled to halt progress for your own selfish goals. Besides, it's fallacious to imply that people need "incentives" to innovate. I'd wager there are much more people who are hindered by the patent system than there are people who would stop innovating just because there's no more monopoly to be had by being the first to apply for some legalese nonsense. It's utterly absurd to imply any sort of ownership or rights to an abstract concept. The very notion of it should be grounds for attesting insanity. Instead, we should focus on free flow and exchange of ideas, tight cooperation and incremental development off each others' discoveries. So no, they shouldn't be patentable. Nothing should be.

by vadiml 15y ago

nextparadigms 15y ago

I wonder if the creator of the petition even noticed the mistake, or he can't edit it anymore. Would that be a real problem giving the title and some of the body are clearly anti-software patents?

Lost_BiomedE 15y ago
Yes, the creator posted in another thread that that they wont let him edit it. He also said it was accidentally sent prematurely before a good proof-read, due to the system not being intuitive to him at the moment.

shareme 15y ago

No that is generally how the whitehouse miss-writes laws issued..just wait for the over-correction being worse than the original

alain94040 15y ago

Exactly. I didn't sign it because I read the text, had no clue what it meant, so I refused to sign, despite the name. And I wrote patents and experienced firsthand the fun of patent litigation. My position is closer to Jonathan Abrams' tweet: tell the USPTO to stop issuing obvious patents, no matter what form.

grannyg00se 15y ago

For me the problem is that there is frequently "no understanding of the patents being issued". Aside from that, if you are attempting to patent an idea or process I don't see why software should be treated differently than hardware.

TruthElixirX 15y ago
Because software can already be copyrighted.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Surely software copyright prevents reusing of the same source code, but not a different implementation of the same algorithm?
  - thehotdon 15y ago
    Yes, and that's how it should be. Mathematics, including algorithms, is not patentable.
    - grannyg00se 15y ago
      Why shouldn't they be patentable. If your company spends money and time comig up with a novel way to sort or search or compress information, why should you not be afforded the same protections as a company that came up with a novel way to store energy, or convert energy?
      - slowpoke 15y ago
        The "time and money" argument (financial incentive to innovate) is as old as it is irrelevant. Frankly, I don't care if you can't make money off the monopoly rents of an abstract concept (and I'm offended that you think I should). What I care about is you thinking you are entitled to halt progress for your own selfish goals. Besides, it's fallacious to imply that people need "incentives" to innovate. I'd wager there are much more people who are hindered by the patent system than there are people who would stop innovating just because there's no more monopoly to be had by being the first to apply for some legalese nonsense. It's utterly absurd to imply any sort of ownership or rights to an abstract concept. The very notion of it should be grounds for attesting insanity. Instead, we should focus on free flow and exchange of ideas, tight cooperation and incremental development off each others' discoveries. So no, they shouldn't be patentable. Nothing should be.