3 ms·

I love how software engineers think they have a clear understanding of what should or shouldn't be patentable, yet cannot come up with words to describe the del

I love how software engineers think they have a clear understanding of what should or shouldn't be patentable, yet cannot come up with words to describe the delineation more accurately than "good" or "bad" or "weird", or other ways of just facially repeating patent requirements like "non-obviousness", yet don't seem to grasp this is the exact challenge that the law has to deal with with regards to patents. It's not an easy challenge. It turns out, it's actually incredibly hard to come up with a law that describes what should or shouldn't be patentable, with regards to anything that has yet to be invented.

AlbertCory 3y ago
You seem to think that, having mastered what the law IS, you're also an authority on what it should be. Wrong. The people who live under the law are equally well qualified to judge that.
- freejazz 3y ago
  That's not what I think at all - I'm actually begging you to come up with a better delineation.. that's the challenge the law faces in regards to what it should be. We can't write a law that says "good patents are good, bad patents are bad" there needs to be a tangible, comprehensible delineation between good and bad patents that can be applied to things not yet invented... that's the challenge. I'm not sure how you came to your response at all, to be perfectly honest. I'm certainly not saying that lawyers are the only people who should be involved. I'm saying, if software engineers want to help... they need to actually help instead of just pretending like its trivial to delineate the good from the bad. It isn't. Really, the point I'm making is that, as experts in the field, if you cannot come up with a better delineation than simply stating "good" or "bad" - how is that you expect lawyers to do a better job? To further my point, that you responded the way you did is evidence that software engineers aren't actually engaging in the problem and are just sitting on the sidelines having tantrums because things aren't going the way they want.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    OK, so do I understand you correctly that you'd like to write a law that separates the good patents from the bad ones? Tell us: is this a "good patent": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfish,_LLC_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfish,_LLC_v._Microsoft_Corp. How about this? https://patents.google.com/patent/US7818399B1/en?oq=us7%2c818%2c399+ https://patents.google.com/patent/US7818399B1/en?oq=us7%2c81... Both of these are considered valid, post-Alice.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      I'm not sure you are getting my point, so I will repeat myself. The challenge in patent law is to come up with an actual law that delineates good patents from bad patents. This is an extremely difficult task, if not impossible. So, simply stating, from the sidelines "bad patents shouldn't exist" doesn't actually help anything, because it provides no way for the law to filter out bad patents. My point being, I don't think you or others here appreciate that challenge, and instead just do things like you are doing here, where you ignore the questions I pose to you, and instead ask me to defend these patents. I never said either of those were good patents or should be patents... so why am I being asked to defend them? The crucial question is... can you provide a better delineation between good and bad patents besides just facially calling them good or bad? It doesn't appear to be that you can do that. Given that you know more about the technology than lawyers do, how is it that you suppose attorneys make this delineation? As a matter of convenience, I'm not going to respond if you don't answer my question, because it will be clear to me that you are not reading or engaging with my posts because this will be the third time I've posed this issue to you, when you've completely ignored it the first two times in order to step up onto your soapbox while repeating the categorical fallacy I accused you of.
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        So, as I understand the deal here: if I come up with an actual law, then you will tell us whether the patents I named should survive or not? Is that the bargain? Or are you just going to critique what I say?

AlbertCory 3y ago

You seem to think that, having mastered what the law IS, you're also an authority on what it should be. Wrong. The people who live under the law are equally well qualified to judge that.

freejazz 3y ago
That's not what I think at all - I'm actually begging you to come up with a better delineation.. that's the challenge the law faces in regards to what it should be. We can't write a law that says "good patents are good, bad patents are bad" there needs to be a tangible, comprehensible delineation between good and bad patents that can be applied to things not yet invented... that's the challenge. I'm not sure how you came to your response at all, to be perfectly honest. I'm certainly not saying that lawyers are the only people who should be involved. I'm saying, if software engineers want to help... they need to actually help instead of just pretending like its trivial to delineate the good from the bad. It isn't. Really, the point I'm making is that, as experts in the field, if you cannot come up with a better delineation than simply stating "good" or "bad" - how is that you expect lawyers to do a better job? To further my point, that you responded the way you did is evidence that software engineers aren't actually engaging in the problem and are just sitting on the sidelines having tantrums because things aren't going the way they want.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  OK, so do I understand you correctly that you'd like to write a law that separates the good patents from the bad ones? Tell us: is this a "good patent": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfish,_LLC_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfish,_LLC_v._Microsoft_Corp. How about this? https://patents.google.com/patent/US7818399B1/en?oq=us7%2c818%2c399+ https://patents.google.com/patent/US7818399B1/en?oq=us7%2c81... Both of these are considered valid, post-Alice.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    I'm not sure you are getting my point, so I will repeat myself. The challenge in patent law is to come up with an actual law that delineates good patents from bad patents. This is an extremely difficult task, if not impossible. So, simply stating, from the sidelines "bad patents shouldn't exist" doesn't actually help anything, because it provides no way for the law to filter out bad patents. My point being, I don't think you or others here appreciate that challenge, and instead just do things like you are doing here, where you ignore the questions I pose to you, and instead ask me to defend these patents. I never said either of those were good patents or should be patents... so why am I being asked to defend them? The crucial question is... can you provide a better delineation between good and bad patents besides just facially calling them good or bad? It doesn't appear to be that you can do that. Given that you know more about the technology than lawyers do, how is it that you suppose attorneys make this delineation? As a matter of convenience, I'm not going to respond if you don't answer my question, because it will be clear to me that you are not reading or engaging with my posts because this will be the third time I've posed this issue to you, when you've completely ignored it the first two times in order to step up onto your soapbox while repeating the categorical fallacy I accused you of.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      So, as I understand the deal here: if I come up with an actual law, then you will tell us whether the patents I named should survive or not? Is that the bargain? Or are you just going to critique what I say?