3 ms·

>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

>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?
- freejazz 3y ago
  I don't see what one has to do with the other. The issue isn't that you or I agree or disagree. The issue is that no one has offered a workable solution to the problem, yet people here insist that its some sort of trivial thing. You refuse to acknowledge that and just keep asking me about enfish... why would I agree to play your game? You can't even honestly discourse with me
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    It IS simple; it's just not easy. I've been around negotiators, and you always want to make the other party commit themselves without offering anything yourself. So: would you keep any software patents if it were up to you, or would you not? If you don't want to talk about Enfish, then pick some others.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      I think I finally understand what's going on. You don't have a way of keeping out bad software patents while allowing good ones in. You just don't want any software patents at all, and that's your solution. I think this conversation is probably over.
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        As I said at the beginning, "Congress must legislate that software is not patentable subject matter." I'm glad you finally understand that.
pclmulqdq 3y ago
> 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. I will just point out that the amount of litigation that has occurred and will occur in the future is actually a better justification for the "clear criteria, unclear boundary" approach (like how we define pornography) rather than a one-size-fits-all boundary, which would be pretty much impossible to draw anyway given the breadth of human knowledge. I believe that you are asking for the latter, correct? > That's not true. Patents today have to be just as inventive as they were before. There is no question that they have to be inventive. The question is how "inventiveness" is defined with respect to software under the (unquestionably true) idea that laws of nature cannot be invented. Since algorithms are arguably like laws of nature, there are very unclear rules right now about what kinds of software innovations reflect "invention" vs "discovery," particularly post-Alice.
- freejazz 3y ago
  >I will just point out that the amount of litigation that has occurred and will occur in the future is actually a better justification for the "clear criteria, unclear boundary" approach (like how we define pornography) rather than a one-size-fits-all boundary, which would be pretty much impossible to draw anyway given the breadth of human knowledge. I believe that you are asking for the latter, correct? No it's not. It makes litigation much more expensive and leads to the exact problem people here are complaining about "bad software patents shouldn't exist!" >There is no question that they have to be inventive. The question is how "inventiveness" is defined with respect to software under the (unquestionably true) idea that laws of nature cannot be invented. Since algorithms are arguably like laws of nature, there are very unclear rules right now about what kinds of software innovations reflect "invention" vs "discovery," particularly post-Alice. I'm well aware. I'm pointing out that saying good and bad hasn't gotten us the solution so until someone proposes something better, software engineers need to realize that we are stuck here. You are once again, not providing a delineation between what is validly inventive and invalidly inventive. If the technologists can't do it, how can a judge.

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?

freejazz 3y ago
I don't see what one has to do with the other. The issue isn't that you or I agree or disagree. The issue is that no one has offered a workable solution to the problem, yet people here insist that its some sort of trivial thing. You refuse to acknowledge that and just keep asking me about enfish... why would I agree to play your game? You can't even honestly discourse with me
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  It IS simple; it's just not easy. I've been around negotiators, and you always want to make the other party commit themselves without offering anything yourself. So: would you keep any software patents if it were up to you, or would you not? If you don't want to talk about Enfish, then pick some others.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    I think I finally understand what's going on. You don't have a way of keeping out bad software patents while allowing good ones in. You just don't want any software patents at all, and that's your solution. I think this conversation is probably over.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      As I said at the beginning, "Congress must legislate that software is not patentable subject matter." I'm glad you finally understand that.

pclmulqdq 3y ago

> 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. I will just point out that the amount of litigation that has occurred and will occur in the future is actually a better justification for the "clear criteria, unclear boundary" approach (like how we define pornography) rather than a one-size-fits-all boundary, which would be pretty much impossible to draw anyway given the breadth of human knowledge. I believe that you are asking for the latter, correct? > That's not true. Patents today have to be just as inventive as they were before. There is no question that they have to be inventive. The question is how "inventiveness" is defined with respect to software under the (unquestionably true) idea that laws of nature cannot be invented. Since algorithms are arguably like laws of nature, there are very unclear rules right now about what kinds of software innovations reflect "invention" vs "discovery," particularly post-Alice.

freejazz 3y ago
>I will just point out that the amount of litigation that has occurred and will occur in the future is actually a better justification for the "clear criteria, unclear boundary" approach (like how we define pornography) rather than a one-size-fits-all boundary, which would be pretty much impossible to draw anyway given the breadth of human knowledge. I believe that you are asking for the latter, correct? No it's not. It makes litigation much more expensive and leads to the exact problem people here are complaining about "bad software patents shouldn't exist!" >There is no question that they have to be inventive. The question is how "inventiveness" is defined with respect to software under the (unquestionably true) idea that laws of nature cannot be invented. Since algorithms are arguably like laws of nature, there are very unclear rules right now about what kinds of software innovations reflect "invention" vs "discovery," particularly post-Alice. I'm well aware. I'm pointing out that saying good and bad hasn't gotten us the solution so until someone proposes something better, software engineers need to realize that we are stuck here. You are once again, not providing a delineation between what is validly inventive and invalidly inventive. If the technologists can't do it, how can a judge.