6 ms·

You can patent a data structure!? Seriously? This is straight up an abstract idea. I think non-abstract patents are beneficial and help society. This is just pl

You can patent a data structure!? Seriously? This is straight up an abstract idea. I think non-abstract patents are beneficial and help society. This is just plain idiocy.

munchbunny 14y ago
Did you see how complex the data structure actually is? If I had to choose between implementing a Judy array and implementing JPEG, I'd much rather try to write the JPEG code. Patenting a data structure sounds ridiculous, but it's a little less ridiculous once you consider how complex the underlying algorithms actually are.
- taeric 14y ago
  So... I can patent complicated math? This is essentially what you are saying, right?
  - cma 14y ago
    All inventions are complicated math.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      No, some inventions are describable with math. Some 'inventions' are math. A Wankel engine is not math. You can model it and describe it with math, but that is irrelevant. Any equation that you can make will merely describe a Wenkel engine, not be one. Equations for mathematical concepts are those concepts (expressed in a particular format).
      - cma 14y ago
        A distinction without a difference.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        You really don't see a difference? If I write out a book parametrization a Wankel engine and describing the chemistry and physics of the system necessary to make it turn, I have not implemented a Wankel engine, and I am in violation of no patents. It is a description of the engine, not an engine. A mathematical description of an algorithm can be executed. It is the algorithm. The description is an implementation and any implementation is the description. There is literally no line between the two, the only thing that you can change is the notation in which you write it. If you don't see the difference, you are just being obtuse. The difference is as plain the difference between physics and mathematics.
        cma 14y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesi...
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - 30thElement 14y ago
    All software patents are patents on complicated math.
    - tjoff 14y ago
      From what I've seen software patents seems to be mostly trivial math.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        Trivial math with a relatively inaccessible notation. The notation is why most people seem to have a hard time recognizing it as math I think, people have tunnel-vision and think of "math" as the stuff they learned in primary school.
      - munchbunny 14y ago
        Non-trivial theoretical basis, reduced to trivial math for implementation. JPEG and wavelet compression in practice is surprisingly simple math. But the theory that explains why and how it works is far from trivial.
  - munchbunny 14y ago
    That's not what I'm saying and you know it. Please don't turn my point into a caricature. JPEG was patented. I can understand why. It was novel, it was not obvious, and it was useful. That trio makes a pretty good case for patentability, ignoring whether algorithms can/should be patented in general. From what I've read, Judy arrays are novel, not obvious (moreso than JPEG, in my subjective opinion), and useful. So it doesn't seem far fetched to patent Judy arrays, ignoring whether algorithms can/should be patented in general. Which is why I said "a little less ridiculous". This has nothing to do with complicated math, even though both data structures/algorithms involve complicated math.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      > It was novel, it was not obvious, and it was useful. You could say the same of the Pythagorean theorem, or FFT. Thankfully in the case of the later, IBM's patent lawyers exhibited sanity.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  So is JPEG's complexity the cutoff for you? What do you think of the LZW patents then? LZW is simple as hell.
  - munchbunny 14y ago
    To be completely honest, I'm not sure where I stand because it's a very complex issue. JPEG met the novelty, non-obviousness, and usefulness tests, as did LZW. That they're considered nearly trivial these days is because they were such influential algorithms that they've become part of the programming canon. That said, please don't represent my stance as a matter of a cutoff. Many things in this world, including the question of patentability, are fuzzy distinctions that require some subjective "good judgement." Common law legal systems are bad at handling this, which is partly why judicial philosophy is so complex. If I oppose patenting an algorithm/data structure, it's because I don't think patent protection is necessary in order for people to push the state of the art forward.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      LZW isn't considered trivial because it has "become part of programming canon". It is considered trivial because it is trivial: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/LZW_compression#Clojure http://rosettacode.org/wiki/LZW_compression#Clojure
      - munchbunny 14y ago
        You're calling it trivial with over 30 years of advancements in computer science behind you. Also, thanks for picking the shortest sample on the page to show that it's trivial. If it were trivial when the patentability question came up, it wouldn't have been a published paper in the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory and an active area of publication for at least the next six years. Whether or not it's trivial today, this was the cutting edge of computer science when the patent was granted.
        jlgreco 14y ago
hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
Regarding patents, people always complain a particular patent couldn't have been granted because it's not novel enough, anyone could have thought it, or that it's math. Patent law is a black-on-white subject, either you support it or not. It's impossible to grant some patents under subjective premises and be fair at the same time.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > It's impossible to grant some patents under subjective premises and be fair at the same time. Is that not the job of patent examiners?
  - hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
    Blaming it on the examiner is not the point. The idea behind patents is protecting the innovator. How does patent law protect anyone when it's trivial to argue a patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place (because it's not novel, or it's just math, blah blah)? You could say that about all patents ever filled. It defeats the whole purpose behind patents. Whoever has the biggest patent pool and deepest pocket wins, not the little guy on the sweatshop. The only people to benefit from patents are lawyers.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      I am not "blaming" anything on patent examiners. I am saying that they exist for their ability to interpret and decide. Were patent law black and white as you suggest, they would have no purpose.
    - munchbunny 14y ago
      Be careful. The idea behind patents and IP law in general isn't protecting the innovator. It's incentivizing the innovator to advance society through new ideas. The subtle difference is that, when society no longer benefits from protecting the "innovator", that person shouldn't get protection from IP law. Unfortunately, IP law today is a perversion of this original principle.
- 14y ago

You can patent a data structure!? Seriously? This is straight up an abstract idea. I think non-abstract patents are beneficial and help society. This is just plain idiocy.

munchbunny 14y ago

Did you see how complex the data structure actually is? If I had to choose between implementing a Judy array and implementing JPEG, I'd much rather try to write the JPEG code. Patenting a data structure sounds ridiculous, but it's a little less ridiculous once you consider how complex the underlying algorithms actually are.

taeric 14y ago
So... I can patent complicated math? This is essentially what you are saying, right?
- cma 14y ago
  All inventions are complicated math.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    No, some inventions are describable with math. Some 'inventions' are math. A Wankel engine is not math. You can model it and describe it with math, but that is irrelevant. Any equation that you can make will merely describe a Wenkel engine, not be one. Equations for mathematical concepts are those concepts (expressed in a particular format).
    - cma 14y ago
      A distinction without a difference.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        You really don't see a difference? If I write out a book parametrization a Wankel engine and describing the chemistry and physics of the system necessary to make it turn, I have not implemented a Wankel engine, and I am in violation of no patents. It is a description of the engine, not an engine. A mathematical description of an algorithm can be executed. It is the algorithm. The description is an implementation and any implementation is the description. There is literally no line between the two, the only thing that you can change is the notation in which you write it. If you don't see the difference, you are just being obtuse. The difference is as plain the difference between physics and mathematics.
        cma 14y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesi...
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- 30thElement 14y ago
  All software patents are patents on complicated math.
  - tjoff 14y ago
    From what I've seen software patents seems to be mostly trivial math.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Trivial math with a relatively inaccessible notation. The notation is why most people seem to have a hard time recognizing it as math I think, people have tunnel-vision and think of "math" as the stuff they learned in primary school.
    - munchbunny 14y ago
      Non-trivial theoretical basis, reduced to trivial math for implementation. JPEG and wavelet compression in practice is surprisingly simple math. But the theory that explains why and how it works is far from trivial.
- munchbunny 14y ago
  That's not what I'm saying and you know it. Please don't turn my point into a caricature. JPEG was patented. I can understand why. It was novel, it was not obvious, and it was useful. That trio makes a pretty good case for patentability, ignoring whether algorithms can/should be patented in general. From what I've read, Judy arrays are novel, not obvious (moreso than JPEG, in my subjective opinion), and useful. So it doesn't seem far fetched to patent Judy arrays, ignoring whether algorithms can/should be patented in general. Which is why I said "a little less ridiculous". This has nothing to do with complicated math, even though both data structures/algorithms involve complicated math.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    > It was novel, it was not obvious, and it was useful. You could say the same of the Pythagorean theorem, or FFT. Thankfully in the case of the later, IBM's patent lawyers exhibited sanity.
jlgreco 14y ago
So is JPEG's complexity the cutoff for you? What do you think of the LZW patents then? LZW is simple as hell.
- munchbunny 14y ago
  To be completely honest, I'm not sure where I stand because it's a very complex issue. JPEG met the novelty, non-obviousness, and usefulness tests, as did LZW. That they're considered nearly trivial these days is because they were such influential algorithms that they've become part of the programming canon. That said, please don't represent my stance as a matter of a cutoff. Many things in this world, including the question of patentability, are fuzzy distinctions that require some subjective "good judgement." Common law legal systems are bad at handling this, which is partly why judicial philosophy is so complex. If I oppose patenting an algorithm/data structure, it's because I don't think patent protection is necessary in order for people to push the state of the art forward.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    LZW isn't considered trivial because it has "become part of programming canon". It is considered trivial because it is trivial: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/LZW_compression#Clojure http://rosettacode.org/wiki/LZW_compression#Clojure
    - munchbunny 14y ago
      You're calling it trivial with over 30 years of advancements in computer science behind you. Also, thanks for picking the shortest sample on the page to show that it's trivial. If it were trivial when the patentability question came up, it wouldn't have been a published paper in the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory and an active area of publication for at least the next six years. Whether or not it's trivial today, this was the cutting edge of computer science when the patent was granted.
      - jlgreco 14y ago

hcarvalhoalves 14y ago

Regarding patents, people always complain a particular patent couldn't have been granted because it's not novel enough, anyone could have thought it, or that it's math. Patent law is a black-on-white subject, either you support it or not. It's impossible to grant some patents under subjective premises and be fair at the same time.

jlgreco 14y ago
> It's impossible to grant some patents under subjective premises and be fair at the same time. Is that not the job of patent examiners?
- hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
  Blaming it on the examiner is not the point. The idea behind patents is protecting the innovator. How does patent law protect anyone when it's trivial to argue a patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place (because it's not novel, or it's just math, blah blah)? You could say that about all patents ever filled. It defeats the whole purpose behind patents. Whoever has the biggest patent pool and deepest pocket wins, not the little guy on the sweatshop. The only people to benefit from patents are lawyers.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    I am not "blaming" anything on patent examiners. I am saying that they exist for their ability to interpret and decide. Were patent law black and white as you suggest, they would have no purpose.
  - munchbunny 14y ago
    Be careful. The idea behind patents and IP law in general isn't protecting the innovator. It's incentivizing the innovator to advance society through new ideas. The subtle difference is that, when society no longer benefits from protecting the "innovator", that person shouldn't get protection from IP law. Unfortunately, IP law today is a perversion of this original principle.
14y ago