4 ms·

I suspect that even if they allowed submitting code then it will probably not be mandated which language be used and we will likely get something like obfuscate

I suspect that even if they allowed submitting code then it will probably not be mandated which language be used and we will likely get something like obfuscated javascript or Brainfuck or god forbid obfuscated Brainfuck (if that is not redundant) in the patent. Documented code would be a great step forward if we decide we have to keep patents around because at least your money is buying source code in some form.

jacques_chester 14y ago
It'd be easy enough to mandate a list of languages. Or alternatively to require languages to be standards published by a recognised national or international body from a short list (ISO, ANSI and equivs, IEEE, ECMA etc).
- Guthur 14y ago
  Wouldn't rule out Javascript then. I think common sense applied to the process would be enough, rather than mandating languages that may or may not be relevant in the future. Though Patent System and Common Sense might be bit of an oxymoron.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    > Wouldn't rule out Javascript then. Or C# (ECMA), Common Lisp (ANSI), SQL (ISO), Fuzzy Control Language (IEC) ...
    - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
      Or C (ISO/ANSI)
      - jacques_chester 14y ago
        Yes, but it's not as amusing :D
Osiris 14y ago
How does that differ from Copyright? Copyright already protects the actual source code. So, companies should rely on copyright and trade secrets to protect their secret sauce, not patents. I read a patent application the other day that basic said that someone with a knowledge of the field would be able to reproduce the invention using the patent as a guide. The application was 50+ pages long and I couldn't get past about 10 of then without dying a little inside.
- jandrewrogers 14y ago
  Patents protect the abstract process, copyrights protect an implementation of that process. They are two separate things and independently valuable. Companies license the patents and implementation separately all the time in other engineering disciplines. All patentable subject matters work this way. In some engineering areas I've worked in, you license the patents from one company and license an implementation design from another. The notion that computer algorithm patents are somehow special in this regard betrays a lack of familiarity with other engineering disciplines. (I agree that patents are nigh unreadable but then I come across many cases of people correctly reconstructing e.g. computer algorithms with nothing but a patent to work from so it appears to be eminently possible.)
- just2n 14y ago
  I've read a number of software patents and I would definitely not be able to reproduce the invention using just the information in the patent. Rather, I'd have to take the described functional claims and build something that does what it says. So they're almost fully functional. The code should be included to uphold the spirit of the patent. A patent is a temporary monopoly granted in return for telling everyone how your invention works. If all you do is enumerate what your invention does in your claims, you haven't described how it works, and if the patent is granted, you've effectively only described any implementation of your idea, which is a huge problem. Providing source code narrows the patent to AN implementation of an idea, and to experts in the field, actually explains in a common language (not legalese) exactly how it works. Have a read of the brief the EFF put together for the PTO. It's somewhat readable, even for an engineer.

jacques_chester 14y ago

It'd be easy enough to mandate a list of languages. Or alternatively to require languages to be standards published by a recognised national or international body from a short list (ISO, ANSI and equivs, IEEE, ECMA etc).

Guthur 14y ago
Wouldn't rule out Javascript then. I think common sense applied to the process would be enough, rather than mandating languages that may or may not be relevant in the future. Though Patent System and Common Sense might be bit of an oxymoron.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  > Wouldn't rule out Javascript then. Or C# (ECMA), Common Lisp (ANSI), SQL (ISO), Fuzzy Control Language (IEC) ...
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    Or C (ISO/ANSI)
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      Yes, but it's not as amusing :D

Osiris 14y ago

How does that differ from Copyright? Copyright already protects the actual source code. So, companies should rely on copyright and trade secrets to protect their secret sauce, not patents. I read a patent application the other day that basic said that someone with a knowledge of the field would be able to reproduce the invention using the patent as a guide. The application was 50+ pages long and I couldn't get past about 10 of then without dying a little inside.

jandrewrogers 14y ago
Patents protect the abstract process, copyrights protect an implementation of that process. They are two separate things and independently valuable. Companies license the patents and implementation separately all the time in other engineering disciplines. All patentable subject matters work this way. In some engineering areas I've worked in, you license the patents from one company and license an implementation design from another. The notion that computer algorithm patents are somehow special in this regard betrays a lack of familiarity with other engineering disciplines. (I agree that patents are nigh unreadable but then I come across many cases of people correctly reconstructing e.g. computer algorithms with nothing but a patent to work from so it appears to be eminently possible.)
just2n 14y ago
I've read a number of software patents and I would definitely not be able to reproduce the invention using just the information in the patent. Rather, I'd have to take the described functional claims and build something that does what it says. So they're almost fully functional. The code should be included to uphold the spirit of the patent. A patent is a temporary monopoly granted in return for telling everyone how your invention works. If all you do is enumerate what your invention does in your claims, you haven't described how it works, and if the patent is granted, you've effectively only described any implementation of your idea, which is a huge problem. Providing source code narrows the patent to AN implementation of an idea, and to experts in the field, actually explains in a common language (not legalese) exactly how it works. Have a read of the brief the EFF put together for the PTO. It's somewhat readable, even for an engineer.