3 ms·

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 monop

• 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.