7 ms·
Software patents are a huge drag on small companies and innovative large ones, it's just that large companies are better able to handle the costs. Our world wou
by ntonozzi 4y ago
Software patents are a huge drag on small companies and innovative large ones, it's just that large companies are better able to handle the costs. Our world would be better if we ended software patents. Check out FSF's campaign to end software patents: https://endsoftwarepatents.org https://endsoftwarepatents.org.
- VWWHFSfQ 4y agoThis isn't a software patent.
- nhchris 4y agoYes it is: Voice Tech's patents, according to their abstract, involve "receiving audio data from [a] mobile device at the computer. The audio data is decoded into a command. A software program that the command was provided for is determined. At least one process is executed at the computer in response to the command. Output data is generated at the computer in response to executing at least one process at the computer. The output data is transmitted to the mobile device." https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/12/mycroft_patent_troll/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/12/mycroft_patent_troll/
- VWWHFSfQ 4y agoThis is different. This isn't a patent of an algorithm or similar implementation in software. This is a means of controlling a device by decoded voice commands via another device. It's not a software patent in the way FOSS people mean when they say to ban software patents.
- EarlKing 4y agoDescribing a shovel as an "emplacement tool" does not make it not a shovel. Similarly, dressing up a software patent to disguise its functionality as a software patent does not make it cease to be a software patent.
- AnthonyMouse 4y agoIf software that runs on a prior art general purpose computer can infringe a patent, it's a software patent.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y agoIf the difference between a device allegedly infringing and not infringing is whether it's running a certain piece of software, then obviously the software is what's patented.
- NotYourLawyer 4y agoThe abstract isn’t the part that matters.
- bonzini 4y agoTake patent US9794348[1] which covers some specific heuristics that can be used to decide which voice command to execute. The only remotely interesting part of the claims (the "audio command interface") is definitely software, the detailed description even says that it could expose an API and other applications could use it to expose voice commands. [1] see https://patents.google.com/patent/US9794348 https://patents.google.com/patent/US9794348
- NotYourLawyer 4y agoI wasn’t taking a position about whether this qualifies as a software patent. Just pointing out that the abstract is near-worthless in making any evaluation of a patent.
- GoblinSlayer 4y agoFormally it's intended as a hardware patent due to involvement of computer. But since it doesn't invent hardware, it's merely invalid patent. AFAIK USPTO bears no responsibility for granting invalid patents.
- zoobab 4y ago"it's intended as a hardware patent due to involvement of computer" All software patents are hardware patents since the program runs on the computer. That's the loophole that the EPO has been using to allow software patents to be granted anyway, despite their exclusion in the law. After the failed attempt to codify their practice in law in 2005, the large companies and the patent industry decided to install their own court, the Unified Patent Court, which might go live next 1st March. They broke the rule of law as they needed the signature of the UK, with the blessing of the European Commission Thierry Breton, the guy who was ex-CEO of Technicolor, who made a fortune with MP3 patents.
- GoblinSlayer 4y agoHow will they enforce decisions of their court?
- puffoflogic 4y agoIt's only an invalid patent if you manage to get review before SCOTUS. Otherwise your road ends at the federal circuit which has yet to meet a patent it doesn't like.
- GoblinSlayer 4y agoPretty sure you can go up from federal court? It happened.
- ikekkdcjkfke 4y agoHow isn't this an obvious invention?
- rektide 4y agoBut it took a million dollars to defend that it wasn't one patent, from one person. Seems like a very very real reason to be horrified by software patents.
- ntonozzi 4y agoCan you explain why it's not what EFF means? To me, the part of software patents that doesn't make sense is that you can patent any possible combination of ideas — in this case the combination of using voice and remotely controlling a computer — and it's considered a valid patent. In my opinion, this is like patenting putting a blue Lego brick on a red brick because nobody bothered to write down or patent that particular combination before. There's no core novelty here, and obviously Mycroft was not stealing profits from Voice Tech Corp.
- CameronNemo 4y agoHonestly the entire patent system should be thrown out / winded down. Nothing but dead weight, especially when huge countries like China completely ignore them. We can find other ways to finance "innovation".
- RobotToaster 4y agoI honestly can't think of a single incidence of the patent system promoting innovation in the last 20 years. For small companies patents are basically worthless, a big company can just play legal ropeadope until they run out of money.
- bdowling 4y agoA small company (e.g., a startup) will never sue to enforce its patents because suing is too expensive. Because they won’t sue, they won’t be able to license the patents to anyone. For a startup, however, patents can still have value in at least the following ways: 1. Patents on improvements may discourage larger competitors from suing the startup for infringing the competitors' patents, because the startup may counter-claim infringement of its improvement patents. 2. A potential acquirer may want to acquire the company for its patents. The acquirer may be an established competitor who does have the resources to assert the patents against other competitors, either offensively or defensively. 3. Patents may encourage investors who see patents as residual assets that would be liquidated if the company fails.
- em3rgent0rdr 4y agoValue (1) illustrates the absurdity of the patent system. Innovation, the thing the patent system ostensibly protects, is put at risk by..patents. And so the value of a patent for inventors is to protect their innovation from...patents.
- bdowling 4y agoThere are very few places in law where you can legally stake a claim within someone else's territory and exploit it for profit. Our patent system is one of them because it allows one inventor to patent an improvement to another inventor's patented invention. That should (1) encourage early inventors to continue to invest in improving their inventions before someone else does and (2) encourage new inventors to improve on existing, still-patented inventions by giving them ways to profit from their improvements.
- yazzku 4y agoThat campaign is an initiative from the FSF, by the way, though it's not surprising the EFF may also be promoting it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]