4 ms·

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

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?
    - freejazz 3y ago
      There's no deal. You keep avoiding my questions. It's very simple. If technologists can't come up with a delineating line between valid and invalid software patents, how do you propose a judge to do so? You sit here and say good patents are okay, but bad patents must go. So I ask you again and again, define a bad patent... no response. You ignore and you flip the conversation to ask me about already existing patents. They aren't the issue, the issue is coming up with a way to filter them out...
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        > If technologists can't come up with a delineating line between valid and invalid software patents, how do you propose a judge to do so I didn't say a judge should do it. I said the Congress should do it. And what Congress should do is a political question, not a legal one, which is why our opinion is as valid as yours. As for 'just answer my question': I think you mainly want engineers to say something concrete so you can critique it. So how about if you tell us: what are some examples of good software patents?
        freejazz 3y ago
        >I didn't say a judge should do it. I said the Congress should do it. And what Congress should do is a political question, not a legal one, which is why our opinion is as valid as yours. Is there something wrong with you? I'm clearly valuing your opinion... this will be like the 7th time I've asked you for it, yet you refuse to give it and now insist that I'm being some sort of gatekeeper for patent opinions... this is bizarre. Hoping its because english isn't your first language. >As for 'just answer my question': I think you mainly want engineers to say something concrete so you can critique it. So how about if you tell us: what are some examples of good software patents? Lol dude why are you being this obtuse? It's not a trick. It's just that hard to come up with a workable line here. It really has nothing to do with my opinion on enfish. Engineers are here saying it should be easy to filter out the bad patents... okay, if so, tell us how... I'm here waiting.
pclmulqdq 3y ago
I think the definition, for a lot of people, is like the famous definition of pornography - I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it. This is a prime area for courts to provide some judgment, but only if they had a clear set of criteria (not necessarily a bright line, but a set of criteria as to what makes a software patent sufficiently "inventive") on which to judge software patents, which they definitely don't have today.
- freejazz 3y ago
  >I think the definition, for a lot of people, is like the famous definition of pornography - I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it. This is a prime area for courts to provide some judgment, but only if they had a clear set of criteria (not necessarily a bright line, but a set of criteria as to what makes a software patent sufficiently "inventive") on which to judge software patents, which they definitely don't have today. There's a lot more patent litigation than obscenity litigation, so I don't think that's a workable stadnard. Also with much more money at stake. And given the responses here... strong feelings as well. So I don't think that really works given the complaints here. > This is a prime area for courts to provide some judgment, but only if they had a clear set of criteria (not necessarily a bright line, but a set of criteria as to what makes a software patent sufficiently "inventive") on which to judge software patents, which they definitely don't have today. That's not true. Patents today have to be just as inventive as they were before. To show how you are proving my point... I asked... "hey software engineers, help us attorneys out and tell us where the line should be" your response was "well, there is no clear line and I can't help you find one but judges should really provide one..." I just want to reiterate that if technologists cannot delineate a clear line between the good and bad software patents... please literally explain how a judge will be able to...
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    As I said above: I will propose a law (or rather amendments to existing law). And in return, you will tell us whether some of the patents that have been upheld by CAFC post-CLS Bank v. Alice deserve to survive or not? Are we agreed?

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?
  - freejazz 3y ago
    There's no deal. You keep avoiding my questions. It's very simple. If technologists can't come up with a delineating line between valid and invalid software patents, how do you propose a judge to do so? You sit here and say good patents are okay, but bad patents must go. So I ask you again and again, define a bad patent... no response. You ignore and you flip the conversation to ask me about already existing patents. They aren't the issue, the issue is coming up with a way to filter them out...
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      > If technologists can't come up with a delineating line between valid and invalid software patents, how do you propose a judge to do so I didn't say a judge should do it. I said the Congress should do it. And what Congress should do is a political question, not a legal one, which is why our opinion is as valid as yours. As for 'just answer my question': I think you mainly want engineers to say something concrete so you can critique it. So how about if you tell us: what are some examples of good software patents?
      - freejazz 3y ago
        >I didn't say a judge should do it. I said the Congress should do it. And what Congress should do is a political question, not a legal one, which is why our opinion is as valid as yours. Is there something wrong with you? I'm clearly valuing your opinion... this will be like the 7th time I've asked you for it, yet you refuse to give it and now insist that I'm being some sort of gatekeeper for patent opinions... this is bizarre. Hoping its because english isn't your first language. >As for 'just answer my question': I think you mainly want engineers to say something concrete so you can critique it. So how about if you tell us: what are some examples of good software patents? Lol dude why are you being this obtuse? It's not a trick. It's just that hard to come up with a workable line here. It really has nothing to do with my opinion on enfish. Engineers are here saying it should be easy to filter out the bad patents... okay, if so, tell us how... I'm here waiting.

pclmulqdq 3y ago

I think the definition, for a lot of people, is like the famous definition of pornography - I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it. This is a prime area for courts to provide some judgment, but only if they had a clear set of criteria (not necessarily a bright line, but a set of criteria as to what makes a software patent sufficiently "inventive") on which to judge software patents, which they definitely don't have today.

freejazz 3y ago
>I think the definition, for a lot of people, is like the famous definition of pornography - I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it. This is a prime area for courts to provide some judgment, but only if they had a clear set of criteria (not necessarily a bright line, but a set of criteria as to what makes a software patent sufficiently "inventive") on which to judge software patents, which they definitely don't have today. There's a lot more patent litigation than obscenity litigation, so I don't think that's a workable stadnard. Also with much more money at stake. And given the responses here... strong feelings as well. So I don't think that really works given the complaints here. > This is a prime area for courts to provide some judgment, but only if they had a clear set of criteria (not necessarily a bright line, but a set of criteria as to what makes a software patent sufficiently "inventive") on which to judge software patents, which they definitely don't have today. That's not true. Patents today have to be just as inventive as they were before. To show how you are proving my point... I asked... "hey software engineers, help us attorneys out and tell us where the line should be" your response was "well, there is no clear line and I can't help you find one but judges should really provide one..." I just want to reiterate that if technologists cannot delineate a clear line between the good and bad software patents... please literally explain how a judge will be able to...
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  As I said above: I will propose a law (or rather amendments to existing law). And in return, you will tell us whether some of the patents that have been upheld by CAFC post-CLS Bank v. Alice deserve to survive or not? Are we agreed?