4 ms·

I wonder how important the actual wording is vs what appears to be the intent on what the patent covers. To me (and I know I'm simplifying just like the random

I wonder how important the actual wording is vs what appears to be the intent on what the patent covers. To me (and I know I'm simplifying just like the random commenters you speak of), the patent is _intended_ to cover 1. performing heuristic searches on multiple areas (modules) 2. using a different search on each area However, it uses the word "predetermined" when defining the heuristic algorithm to use for each area. If my code randomly picks between two slightly different heuristics (even with a very low probability), would it still be covered under the patent? Also it says "heuristic algorithm" meaning singular algorithm. If I ran 2 algorithms in parallel (even one that always returns no results) and then chose the "better" of the two, would that get around the patent too? Are patents vulnerable to this sort of work-around due to subtle interpretations of wording, or is it really the intent of the patent that matters?

ceol 14y ago
I'm not sure if you remember the whole thing where John Carmack had to change some 3D shader code in Doom 3 because of a patent dispute. The change was adding four lines of code and changing two.[0] So I would say choosing between two similar algorithms, running two algorithms in parallel, or running an additional algorithm that always returned empty would be a valid workaround. [0]: https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/137189212519792640 https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/137189212519792640
jedbrown 14y ago
I can think of very few algorithms that don't have sub-algorithms. Isn't any composition of existing algorithms also an algorithm? I can't think of any restriction that algorithm (singular) makes relative to the plural.
sparkie 14y ago
The method of choosing the best of two algorithms is itself, a heuristic, so I can't see how that would get around it.
joe_the_user 14y ago
How important is the wording: You can't normally just claim an obvious extension without evidence. We have to provide prior art for every limitation in a claim, and every word must be considered within a claim. It seem every last adjective counts. "In order to jump to an obvious argument, you'd have to prove this device reads on all the limitations minus the unlock image that is slid. Then you'd have to show something else that uses an image to unlock something. Then you'd have to provide rationale why the combination between the two things would have been obvious at the time of the invention, in this case 2005." In other words, obviousness might seem, uh obvious as a defense for most this stuff. But actuality it's categorically dismissed with the "you can't prove it" argument. Plus the "but was it obvious in 2005, with phone!" (lovely to see those so-and-so's trying to wiggle out of that one but essentially coming back to it).

ceol 14y ago

I'm not sure if you remember the whole thing where John Carmack had to change some 3D shader code in Doom 3 because of a patent dispute. The change was adding four lines of code and changing two.[0] So I would say choosing between two similar algorithms, running two algorithms in parallel, or running an additional algorithm that always returned empty would be a valid workaround. [0]: https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/137189212519792640 https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/137189212519792640

jedbrown 14y ago

I can think of very few algorithms that don't have sub-algorithms. Isn't any composition of existing algorithms also an algorithm? I can't think of any restriction that algorithm (singular) makes relative to the plural.

sparkie 14y ago

The method of choosing the best of two algorithms is itself, a heuristic, so I can't see how that would get around it.

joe_the_user 14y ago

How important is the wording: You can't normally just claim an obvious extension without evidence. We have to provide prior art for every limitation in a claim, and every word must be considered within a claim. It seem every last adjective counts. "In order to jump to an obvious argument, you'd have to prove this device reads on all the limitations minus the unlock image that is slid. Then you'd have to show something else that uses an image to unlock something. Then you'd have to provide rationale why the combination between the two things would have been obvious at the time of the invention, in this case 2005." In other words, obviousness might seem, uh obvious as a defense for most this stuff. But actuality it's categorically dismissed with the "you can't prove it" argument. Plus the "but was it obvious in 2005, with phone!" (lovely to see those so-and-so's trying to wiggle out of that one but essentially coming back to it).