8 ms·
Good thing all source code is just very convenient mathematical notation describing an algorithm... This to me is the most fundamental reason software patents a
by voidlogic 14y ago
Good thing all source code is just very convenient mathematical notation describing an algorithm... This to me is the most fundamental reason software patents are insane.
- baddox 14y agoNot to mention that any piece of digital media (an MP3, JPEG, etc.) is just a big integer.
- nealabq 14y agoYour DNA is also a big integer. You're a just a number.
- voidlogic 14y agoDNA is data and code, code is math. Your cells are computers, robots-. Your brain is a Neural network, so it is also a (different kind of) computer (built out of your cells, smaller computers/robots). All this is well very cool and well known. :)
- baddox 14y agoAnd I don't think people should have intellectual property rights over my DNA or any DNA pattern.
- upthedale 14y agoHow about over one's own DNA? An honest question... no snark intended.
- goldfeld 14y agoWhat about twins?
- baddox 14y agoI'm a fan of privacy, so I wouldn't like people secretly taking skin samples and distributing facts about my DNA, but I wouldn't like the ability to license parts of my own DNA and expect the government to enforce IP laws to cover my DNA.
- NateDad 14y agoThat's privacy, not copyright. Completely unrelated.
- dinkumthinkum 14y agoNot really, the incentive to copyright incentivizes the invasion of privacy. I can walk behind you with a trash bag and voila. Sure, they are different but related.
- amalcon 14y agoI imagine there would be trouble with the logistics of copyrighting molecular structures whose primary distinction is their propensity to copy themselves.
- Turing_Machine 14y agoI'm not sure we want to go down this road. For one, it's not "your own" DNA. Barring the occasional mutation, every bit of it came from your parents, grandparents... I'm not comfortable with the idea that my cells contain someone else's intellectual property.
- triplesec 14y agoMaybe your parents should have it?
- andlima 14y agoIs that why twin brothers can't sue one another for patent violation? :c)
- extesy 14y agoTwins don't have the same DNA.
- andlima 14y agoHmm, didn't know about that. Thanks for the info.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- jlgreco 14y agoIt seems to me that the extent to which monozygotic twins do not have the same DNA would be comparable to the extent that clones would not. Wikipedia indicates that the number of differences averages in the low hundreds, surely with such a low number there would remain plenty of parts that remain truly identical. For the purposes of a twin suing a twin for patent infringement, couldn't we just assume one of the many unchanged portions was patented, not the entirety?
- Draco6slayer 14y agoThough they do share a whole lot. It would be like making a phone rectangular with a touch screen and a home button. Obviously everything inside your phone is completely original, but because they look vaguely similar, you've violated your twin's copyright.
- rickhanlonii 14y agoI agree that your DNA is a big integer , but I don't agree that you're just a number. A number alone is meaningless. The data contained in an MP3 or JPEG alone is meaningless without an interpreter that converts that data to a song or an image. Similarly, the data of your DNA is meaningless without an interpreter that converts that data into a human being. So we're not just the data in our DNA. We are both our DNA data and the biological processes required to read that data, parse the information, and construct every part of ourselves (hat tip to mom for the initial power supply). I think it's a valuable introspection to consider that the data set used to build each of us is representable by an integer, but we should not fall into the trap of believe that that is all we are.
- dinkumthinkum 14y agoWell, you are not your DNA.
- triplesec 14y agolooks behind for a huge semi-inflated sentient white ball ...Then we're doomed to be stuck in this patent village forever aren't we!
- anigbrowl 14y agocopyright != patent.
- pbhjpbhj 14y agoIn Europe this is solved by not allowing patenting of mathematics or raw algorithms but allowing patents that cover the technical application of such things. In certain fields the "technical effect" required [it's not called that any more, the test is more nuanced now] is, shall we say, less obvious than others. [Digital] Image processing/codecs/compression for example always seemed very close to just maths.
- epistasis 14y agoIt's the same way in the US, one doesn't patent the mathematics or algorithm, but the application of an algorithm in a particular field. Discussions on patents are usually so low-information that important details like this are elided. However, I can get behind the point that if your worldview is limited to just software, this can be distinction without a difference.
- itsprofitbaron 14y agoIn Europe, they tried to solve it by saying inventions which are computer implemented and only solve a business problem instead of a technical problem are considered unpatentable[1]. However, what you are saying is the same in the US its why patent applications say "A method for performing SOMETHING by REASON" [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_258/03 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_258/03
- sthu11182 14y agoThe Federal Circuit en banc decision on CLS Bank v. Alice is coming out soon. This case will likely give guidance on a 101 patent subject matter test for software patents (which the Supreme Court would then overrule). The certified questions are: a. What test should the court adopt to determine whether a computer-implemented invention is a patent ineligible "abstract idea"; and when, if ever, does the presence of a computer in a claim lend patent eligibility to an otherwise patent-ineligible idea? b. In assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of a computer-implemented invention, should it matter whether the invention is claimed as a method, system, or storage medium; and should such claims at times be considered equivalent for § 101 purposes?
- Gorbzel 14y agoUpvotes for being the most relevant of any comment on this thread, but it just reflects what the problem is. If history is any guidance, the Federal Circuit will create something rather patent-friendly (brought to you by the team who brought you State Street Bank) and, if it's a big enough deal, SCOTUS will step in to overrule. Of course, followers of the court will note that if recent other cases are any indication, the justices will punt on the actual question. The problem is, as Justice Kennedy notes "the patent law faces a great challenge in striking the balance between protecting inventors and not granting monopolies over procedures that others would discover by independent, creative application of general principles. Nothing in this opinion should be read to take a position on where that balance ought to be struck. " Bilski, 130 S. Ct. 3228 Yet of course, the court is way too busy dealing with Obamacare, gay marriage and pharma inventions to care about software patents. Heck, it's their constitutional role not to actually help the software industry out of this patent war going on. Right Justice Breyer? "In consequence, we must hesitate before departing from established general legal rules lest a new protective [patent] rule that seems to suit the needs of one field produce unforeseen results in another. And we must recognize the role of Congress in crafting more finely tailored rules where necessary" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. 1305 (2012) Of course, as AIA showed, Congress is more worried about posturing on patents than taking any of the decisive action that those who disfavor the status quo in software patents would like to see. So instead, the industry continues doing what it's always done, finding ways to monopolize technology for profit. And the reddits, Hacker News and open sources folks of the world will complain, but it won't matter. Again and again and again, and it's just really tiring at this point. </bitter IP guy>
- deelowe 14y agoGood thing algorithms aren't patented and instead it's the application of the algorithm that gets the grant. Most are written as "a method for performing X by doing Y." IMO, the issue with software patents isn't that businesses patent algorithms or code(which they don't do). Instead, it's that technology moves too fast for the monopoly time that's granted. When it comes to software, what's innovative 5 years ago is common place and often a commodity today.
- Tycho 14y agoMaybe there should be some burden of proof that many people have tried to solve the problem at hand but not come up with the solution in the patent application. For instance, if you invent a new sorting algorithm today, it would be reasonable to patent it; whereas if you invent a new voice activation scheme for a smartphone, it would be unreasonable to patent it because the whole field is relatively new.
- quahada 14y agoThis touches upon the biggest problem I have with the patent system: The bar is very low on the "novel and non-obvious" criteria. If that were used properly, there would be fewer patents, and they would be higher quality.
- ScottBurson 14y agoYes, yes, yes!! I think this is the smallest change that could be made to the current system to make it sane. The burden of proof needs to be on the patent holder to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they invented something nonobvious. That's a pretty low bar, but would require them to present some evidence, which they currently don't have to do.
- boas 14y agoIn my limited experience with both successful and unsuccessful patent applications, the first response from the patent office is often a "nonfinal rejection" due to obviousness (section 103 rejection). In response, you should present evidence that the invention is not obvious. Here are examples of types of evidence that the USPTO finds compelling: - commercial success (not due to better marketing). - failed attempts by other people to solve a longstanding problem. - awards or publications in the scientific literature. - the invention involves a combination of components that produce an unexpected result.
- tocomment 14y agoSpeaking of this I'd love to create a utility to convert a mathmatical formaula (in latex or wiki format) into a Python function. Would that be possible? I think it would go so far in helping me understand formulas I read in papers.
- hackinthebochs 14y agoAbsolutely. Although as a programmer and someone who reads mathematical papers I'm not sure how much of a benefit this would be. The hard part in understanding isn't any particular step, its comprehending how each step fits together as a whole. I don't immediately see how the translation would help this.
- tocomment 14y agoI just feel like I think a lot better looking at code. Each input would have a descriptive variable name. And sometimes if a formula has something unusual like a derivative, it's hard for me to see how that converts to code.
- hackinthebochs 14y agoYeah, there's no doubt a benefit in reading a concept in a language you're more comfortable with. It would have to be an interesting algorithm that could extract meaningful variable names from the surrounding prose when translating an equation to code :)
- jdminhbg 14y agoI feel the same way. In fact, reading math feels like reading code where all the operators have been overloaded and there are only 26 available variable names.
- BHSPitMonkey 14y agoSounds like the math you're reading needs better Unicode support :)
- SilasX 14y ago>Good thing all source code is just very convenient mathematical notation describing an algorithm Only really true for pure functions (i.e. same input -> same output + side effects), I think. A lot of the code in actual practice is stuff like "update this bit of object state", "set this server variable so that it does this"; and it really doesn't generalize beyond a very specific platform. Those may still technically count as algorithms, but not in the sense people normally think of them. Although the ones they try to patent generally are of the "pure function" type, so it may be a distinction without a difference.
- betterunix 14y agoFunny thing about that: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf Program code has been abstract math since the very beginning of computer science.
- dinkumthinkum 14y agoIt's the "technically" that matters, though.
- woodchuck64 14y agoICs are the same... except the ink used for mathematical notation happens to conduct electricity.