3 ms·

>To clarify, … Not the parent, but: in that case you and I agree to disagree: any weird encryption algorithm is the usage of mathematics which should not be pa

by plank 3y ago

>To clarify, … Not the parent, but: in that case you and I agree to disagree: any weird encryption algorithm is the usage of mathematics which should not be patentable in my opinion. The simplest solution in my mind is simply abolishing patents. Just as e.g. the COVID vaccines were developed using public funds, there is enough ‘protection’ in things like trade secrets (‘recipe of coca cola’) or copyright/-left (‘GPL’ or ‘iOS’) to keep us innovative enough.

pclmulqdq 3y ago
I honestly don't think the patent office can draw the right line on what mathematical formulas are discovered vs invented, so that seems reasonable to me. I think you are looking at the abolition of patents from a very "software" perspective. Copyleft license terms have basically never been tested in court, and could just be unenforceable, but the tradition of software engineering seems to keep the peace there - GPL'ed and other open source hardware (which frequently has copyleft licensing) frequently gets ripped off without credit and nobody does anything about it. These would have bad facts in a court case, since the copyright doesn't cover the thing, just the schematics. Trade secrets also generally don't protect you when your product is easy to reverse-engineer and you have customers or competitors with a lot of money to do it. A drug is a prime example of this.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Step by step: first remove software from the domain of patent law. That IS a heavy lift, but abolishing all patents is an impossible one. Then the question of "OK, what IP protections should apply to software, if any?" can be addressed. I don't claim to have the answer all worked out
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    That seems like a reasonable approach to me, and may come with a natural experiment built in. However, it's hard for me to suggest that an algorithm like PageRank, for example, is less inventive or risky to develop than a typical drug, which would suggest that some software ought to be available to patent.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      As Ripley would say, nuking it from orbit is the only way to be sure. Whatever rules you attempt to come up with, the lawyers will nitpick them to death and find some way to keep junk patents alive. For years, everyone in the legal profession looked forward to the CLS Bank v. Alice case at the Supreme Court as the Final Word on software patents. That was 2014. My article: https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/lets-vote-on-it https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/lets-vote-on-it lists some of the patents that have been upheld since CLS Bank.
      - pclmulqdq 3y ago
        Very interesting blog. I might be n = 1 as a software engineer who occasionally reads patents to learn how they work, but I also have some experience with the patent system and can read "patentese" better than most. They often leak more details than their papers. I think a key point here is that Alice is clear as dirt on its intentions. SCOTUS could have come up with a much cleaner test but didn't, and has had the option to clarify their thinking several times since then but has never taken it. I guess patents aren't "sexy" enough.
freejazz 3y ago
I'm not sure how you think copyright would protect that which protects patents, but if your position is that patents are bad, so that in the alternative, corporations should keep everything secret forever (that's what you have to do to have a trade secret...) seems a bit absurd to me, to be perfectly honest.

by plank 3y ago

pclmulqdq 3y ago

I honestly don't think the patent office can draw the right line on what mathematical formulas are discovered vs invented, so that seems reasonable to me. I think you are looking at the abolition of patents from a very "software" perspective. Copyleft license terms have basically never been tested in court, and could just be unenforceable, but the tradition of software engineering seems to keep the peace there - GPL'ed and other open source hardware (which frequently has copyleft licensing) frequently gets ripped off without credit and nobody does anything about it. These would have bad facts in a court case, since the copyright doesn't cover the thing, just the schematics. Trade secrets also generally don't protect you when your product is easy to reverse-engineer and you have customers or competitors with a lot of money to do it. A drug is a prime example of this.

AlbertCory 3y ago
Step by step: first remove software from the domain of patent law. That IS a heavy lift, but abolishing all patents is an impossible one. Then the question of "OK, what IP protections should apply to software, if any?" can be addressed. I don't claim to have the answer all worked out
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  That seems like a reasonable approach to me, and may come with a natural experiment built in. However, it's hard for me to suggest that an algorithm like PageRank, for example, is less inventive or risky to develop than a typical drug, which would suggest that some software ought to be available to patent.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    As Ripley would say, nuking it from orbit is the only way to be sure. Whatever rules you attempt to come up with, the lawyers will nitpick them to death and find some way to keep junk patents alive. For years, everyone in the legal profession looked forward to the CLS Bank v. Alice case at the Supreme Court as the Final Word on software patents. That was 2014. My article: https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/lets-vote-on-it https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/lets-vote-on-it lists some of the patents that have been upheld since CLS Bank.
    - pclmulqdq 3y ago
      Very interesting blog. I might be n = 1 as a software engineer who occasionally reads patents to learn how they work, but I also have some experience with the patent system and can read "patentese" better than most. They often leak more details than their papers. I think a key point here is that Alice is clear as dirt on its intentions. SCOTUS could have come up with a much cleaner test but didn't, and has had the option to clarify their thinking several times since then but has never taken it. I guess patents aren't "sexy" enough.

freejazz 3y ago

I'm not sure how you think copyright would protect that which protects patents, but if your position is that patents are bad, so that in the alternative, corporations should keep everything secret forever (that's what you have to do to have a trade secret...) seems a bit absurd to me, to be perfectly honest.