3 ms·

> As soon as you involve algorithms, it's not all that different from an actual machine or engineering system from a patent law point of view. It should be dif

by shmerl 3y ago

> As soon as you involve algorithms, it's not all that different from an actual machine or engineering system from a patent law point of view. It should be different. The more abstract it gets, the less patentable it should be. Algorithms are more abstract than machines.

jillesvangurp 3y ago
That's simply not up to me or you. Neither of us are lawyers or legally trained (I'm assuming, of course). We'd sound like bumbling baboons in a court of law without proper representation. You wouldn't want a lawyer to tell you how to code either because of something they dreamt up not hindered by even the slightest bit of knowledge. Same difference. Even just translating what you said into something that makes sense legally (or is at all coherent from that point of view), has enough urgency that politicians might act on it, and actually stands a chance of getting enough backing to turn into law, is a process that takes a lot of skill, determination, and time.
- shmerl 3y ago
  That doesn't negate the validity of the basic idea. Algorithms shouldn't be patentable becasue they are more abstract than machines and they give too much monopoly power to those who claim to own them. Legal logic that explains it should be worked out if for some reasons it still isn't.
  - jillesvangurp 3y ago
    > That doesn't negate the validity of the basic idea. Actually it does. Your assertions lack a legal basis, i.e. validity. Something being more abstract than something else is not a legal concept. It might matter to you but you'd get laughed out of a court room. Algorithms have been patented for decades. That's the legal reality. > Legal logic that explains it should be worked out if for some reasons it still isn't. The legal side of this is brutally simple: decades/centuries of existing patents, their interpretations, and any law suits around those. Which of course involves lots of legal bickering for the last decades by big software companies and their inventions arguing every comma, semantics of the words, and generally picking any nit that looks like might be worth picking (lawyers are amazingly good at that), etc. Legal logic dictates that unless the law changes, any new interpretations need to be consistent with all of that previous work. And changing laws and upholding them is a tricky business. Especially when they are being inconsistent with previous laws. Something like that requires a broad consensus. Which of course does not exist.
    - shmerl 3y ago
      If you think this isn't working this way, then the legal system needs fixing so it would. As simple as that. Software patents situation is so messed up because basic and obvious ideas like this aren't applied as they should be.
freejazz 3y ago
In the US, patents related to computing are regularly knocked out for being "too abstract" so, that's how things stand now.

by shmerl 3y ago

jillesvangurp 3y ago

That's simply not up to me or you. Neither of us are lawyers or legally trained (I'm assuming, of course). We'd sound like bumbling baboons in a court of law without proper representation. You wouldn't want a lawyer to tell you how to code either because of something they dreamt up not hindered by even the slightest bit of knowledge. Same difference. Even just translating what you said into something that makes sense legally (or is at all coherent from that point of view), has enough urgency that politicians might act on it, and actually stands a chance of getting enough backing to turn into law, is a process that takes a lot of skill, determination, and time.

shmerl 3y ago
That doesn't negate the validity of the basic idea. Algorithms shouldn't be patentable becasue they are more abstract than machines and they give too much monopoly power to those who claim to own them. Legal logic that explains it should be worked out if for some reasons it still isn't.
- jillesvangurp 3y ago
  > That doesn't negate the validity of the basic idea. Actually it does. Your assertions lack a legal basis, i.e. validity. Something being more abstract than something else is not a legal concept. It might matter to you but you'd get laughed out of a court room. Algorithms have been patented for decades. That's the legal reality. > Legal logic that explains it should be worked out if for some reasons it still isn't. The legal side of this is brutally simple: decades/centuries of existing patents, their interpretations, and any law suits around those. Which of course involves lots of legal bickering for the last decades by big software companies and their inventions arguing every comma, semantics of the words, and generally picking any nit that looks like might be worth picking (lawyers are amazingly good at that), etc. Legal logic dictates that unless the law changes, any new interpretations need to be consistent with all of that previous work. And changing laws and upholding them is a tricky business. Especially when they are being inconsistent with previous laws. Something like that requires a broad consensus. Which of course does not exist.
  - shmerl 3y ago
    If you think this isn't working this way, then the legal system needs fixing so it would. As simple as that. Software patents situation is so messed up because basic and obvious ideas like this aren't applied as they should be.

freejazz 3y ago

In the US, patents related to computing are regularly knocked out for being "too abstract" so, that's how things stand now.