4 ms·

So DataTreasury fixed the way check clearing works, apparently pioneering a new digital approach instead of mailing around checks; implemented it; raised money

So DataTreasury fixed the way check clearing works, apparently pioneering a new digital approach instead of mailing around checks; implemented it; raised money and created 100 jobs; but couldn't get the banks to work with them. The banks then took the idea and implemented it themselves, driving DataTreasury out of business. (snip) To me, this looks like exactly what the patent system is supposed to be: protection for those with innovative concepts, so that they can have the opportunity to commercialize their inventions without incumbents simply cloning their hard work. So you'd agree that if things were right in the world, we should all be using the original version of WebCrawler today, because it pioneered the idea of web search, which these other horrible idea-stealing companies like Google took and re-implemented? Do you really think that's the way business should work, that whoever first notices that a problem needs solving (and bothers to submit a patent application) should have a long-term monopoly on solutions to that problem? Personally, I'd prefer that the means of solution, if non-trivial enough, was protected, rather than the entire set of all possible solutions to a problem.

justinsb 15y ago
"Personally, I'd prefer that the means of solution, if non-trivial enough, was protected, rather than the entire set of all possible solutions to a problem." That's exactly what patents are.
- bermanoid 15y ago
  Well, it's what patents are supposed to be. In reality, it all depends where you draw the line between "problem" and "solution", and IMO this is where a lot of patents, especially software ones, go seriously wrong. If the problem is defined as "send images of checks instead of checks", then DataTreasury is trying to assert ownership over the entire problem rather than their particular solution - they're claiming that any solution that deals in images of checks instead of physical checks infringes, regardless of how it's implemented. If you define the problem as "don't send physical checks", then sure, the particular solution, "send images of checks instead" is what they're asserting ownership over. But in that case, the non-triviality of the solution is seriously questionable. There's no engineering insight at all required to come up with that, and it's one of the first things any group of people would think of when presented with the problem. The entire difficulty is all in how to actually implement such a system (and pre-1994, those implementation details made it unlikely that such a system would work). IMO, in a situation like this, what the patent should cover is the new stuff that DataTreasury actually invented (and I agree that there is some non-trivial content there), not the entire high level problem that their invention allowed them to solve.
  - ScottBurson 15y ago
    I think you've hit the nail on the head. So many patents these days (in software, at least) are just as you describe: cases where someone realized that a problem existed, came up with a quite straightforward solution, and patented it. We need Congress or the courts to tell the PTO that "obvious" means "the solution is straightforward given the problem". And then, of course, we need to get the PTO to hire software engineers who actually know how to build things, so they know what that means.
kiba 15y ago
I prefer we base our standard on what the economic benefit and damage there are to using a patent system, not on what constitute obvious and non-obvious. If there are huge economic impact that are for the worse as a result of patenting non-obvious solution, than we should scrap the system altogether.

justinsb 15y ago

"Personally, I'd prefer that the means of solution, if non-trivial enough, was protected, rather than the entire set of all possible solutions to a problem." That's exactly what patents are.

bermanoid 15y ago
Well, it's what patents are supposed to be. In reality, it all depends where you draw the line between "problem" and "solution", and IMO this is where a lot of patents, especially software ones, go seriously wrong. If the problem is defined as "send images of checks instead of checks", then DataTreasury is trying to assert ownership over the entire problem rather than their particular solution - they're claiming that any solution that deals in images of checks instead of physical checks infringes, regardless of how it's implemented. If you define the problem as "don't send physical checks", then sure, the particular solution, "send images of checks instead" is what they're asserting ownership over. But in that case, the non-triviality of the solution is seriously questionable. There's no engineering insight at all required to come up with that, and it's one of the first things any group of people would think of when presented with the problem. The entire difficulty is all in how to actually implement such a system (and pre-1994, those implementation details made it unlikely that such a system would work). IMO, in a situation like this, what the patent should cover is the new stuff that DataTreasury actually invented (and I agree that there is some non-trivial content there), not the entire high level problem that their invention allowed them to solve.
- ScottBurson 15y ago
  I think you've hit the nail on the head. So many patents these days (in software, at least) are just as you describe: cases where someone realized that a problem existed, came up with a quite straightforward solution, and patented it. We need Congress or the courts to tell the PTO that "obvious" means "the solution is straightforward given the problem". And then, of course, we need to get the PTO to hire software engineers who actually know how to build things, so they know what that means.

kiba 15y ago

I prefer we base our standard on what the economic benefit and damage there are to using a patent system, not on what constitute obvious and non-obvious. If there are huge economic impact that are for the worse as a result of patenting non-obvious solution, than we should scrap the system altogether.