4 ms·

You are wrong on this. A patent makes claims, patents should be shown to work, code is a proof of that. They are computational existence proofs. We should hold

You are wrong on this. A patent makes claims, patents should be shown to work, code is a proof of that. They are computational existence proofs. We should hold our systems to higher standards of rigor. You are shooting something down for how it could possibly be subverted, rather than do that, how about we think of ways that it could be made less corruptible? Is this not a pro-fatalistic stance? Not only should the patent require the code, the product should require the code to be held in escrow. And for safety critical systems, the formal checked models should be presented in a way the proves that the bits on the system were generated from the formally checked code. Would it fix all problems? Hell no! Would it prevent some entities from innovating in the market, hell yes! As it currently stands, you don't even have to have a working system. Corporations are effectively patenting problems, not solutions. Patents themselves are a worthless way of transferring knowledge, this is what needs to change.

raphlinus 4y ago
I may be wrong, and overall I'm very sympathetic to changing the patent system to incentivize actually making things. That said, I think changes to policy must be interpreted in an adversarial context, assuming that people will game the system as much as possible. With this policy, patent filers will clearly be incentivized to give away as little of the store as possible. Also, determining whether the code really works, and really represents the system being protected, is just as difficult a problem (if not more so) than interpreting claims today.
- nerpderp82 4y ago
  I don't disagree, we should always have a critical stance and understand how the systems we build can and will be subverted against the intended design. But that isn't a reason to not build them, and in this case, the effort is to repair an already broken system that has been subverted. If creatively deconstructing it isn't an option, we have to add more "features" and this case the added constraint of functioning code. We can disagree all day what functioning code means, but the goal is worthy and should be explored. How we apply policy that meets the intended goals and isn't gamed is the problem for law makers. Good thing we have spirit as a backstop and not just letter. A certain hedge fund and a billion dollars in AI and civilization could collapse. Right now, the inmates are running the patent system, if we value everyone's ability to participate in innovation, we need a way to reduce BS patents and make them intrinsically more valuable as a form of knowledge transfer.
freejazz 4y ago
Why is it that software patents should have a higher standard than any other type of patent?
- cornstalks 4y ago
  IMO they shouldn't. Personally I'd like for patenting a new physical invention to require a physical object to accompany it that embodies what is being patented.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    But that's never been the case, why should it be now? If you forced every inventor to have to make their invention, it'd be a pro-industry burden that diminished the capacities of any smaller organizations or inventors.
    - cornstalks 4y ago
      > But that's never been the case, why should it be now? For the same reasons TFA is making the argument "No Source Code == No Patent." > If you forced every inventor to have to make their invention, it'd be a pro-industry burden that diminished the capacities of any smaller organizations or inventors. If an inventor never made their invention, are they an inventor? IMO no, they're just an "idea guy" at that point.
      - nerpderp82 4y ago
        You don't even have to be an "idea guy", many patents are patenting the problem domain.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      In fact, in some cases, you DO have to provide a working copy; admittedly now that's when your patent seems impossible (like perpetual motion). Also, for plant patents (that's something only there so they can put it on the Patent Bar exam /s), I believe you have to provide a plant. "make their invention" is the law; it's the RP in ARP and CRP. You can't claim a new antibiotic without giving the formula. 112 rejections are common in patent prosecution.

raphlinus 4y ago

I may be wrong, and overall I'm very sympathetic to changing the patent system to incentivize actually making things. That said, I think changes to policy must be interpreted in an adversarial context, assuming that people will game the system as much as possible. With this policy, patent filers will clearly be incentivized to give away as little of the store as possible. Also, determining whether the code really works, and really represents the system being protected, is just as difficult a problem (if not more so) than interpreting claims today.

nerpderp82 4y ago
I don't disagree, we should always have a critical stance and understand how the systems we build can and will be subverted against the intended design. But that isn't a reason to not build them, and in this case, the effort is to repair an already broken system that has been subverted. If creatively deconstructing it isn't an option, we have to add more "features" and this case the added constraint of functioning code. We can disagree all day what functioning code means, but the goal is worthy and should be explored. How we apply policy that meets the intended goals and isn't gamed is the problem for law makers. Good thing we have spirit as a backstop and not just letter. A certain hedge fund and a billion dollars in AI and civilization could collapse. Right now, the inmates are running the patent system, if we value everyone's ability to participate in innovation, we need a way to reduce BS patents and make them intrinsically more valuable as a form of knowledge transfer.

freejazz 4y ago

Why is it that software patents should have a higher standard than any other type of patent?

cornstalks 4y ago
IMO they shouldn't. Personally I'd like for patenting a new physical invention to require a physical object to accompany it that embodies what is being patented.
- freejazz 4y ago
  But that's never been the case, why should it be now? If you forced every inventor to have to make their invention, it'd be a pro-industry burden that diminished the capacities of any smaller organizations or inventors.
  - cornstalks 4y ago
    > But that's never been the case, why should it be now? For the same reasons TFA is making the argument "No Source Code == No Patent." > If you forced every inventor to have to make their invention, it'd be a pro-industry burden that diminished the capacities of any smaller organizations or inventors. If an inventor never made their invention, are they an inventor? IMO no, they're just an "idea guy" at that point.
    - nerpderp82 4y ago
      You don't even have to be an "idea guy", many patents are patenting the problem domain.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    In fact, in some cases, you DO have to provide a working copy; admittedly now that's when your patent seems impossible (like perpetual motion). Also, for plant patents (that's something only there so they can put it on the Patent Bar exam /s), I believe you have to provide a plant. "make their invention" is the law; it's the RP in ARP and CRP. You can't claim a new antibiotic without giving the formula. 112 rejections are common in patent prosecution.