3 ms·
The problem is, the software patents don't really explain implementation, they simply describe it. Take the scan and email button patent. It presented no implem
by x0054 13y ago
The problem is, the software patents don't really explain implementation, they simply describe it. Take the scan and email button patent. It presented no implementation at all, in fact the original "inventor" never actually managed to get it to work. So, what's the value to the society in that patent? What's the value to the society in a lot of software patents that offer no actual implementation, or general idea patents.
It used to be that you could patent specific implementations, and of some one could come up with a better implementation, they could patent that. Nowadays, it seams like you can patent just about anything, regardless of whether or not it can be implemented at the moment. It would be like the Wright Brothers patenting "a flying device that uses an engine and a propeller" without ever even trying to build one.
- eterm 13y agoThis is an accurate description of the problem. In theory a patent for "A flying device by propulsion of engine and rotary propeller" is a fine patent, but the details of the patent would have to go into implementation. Patents, in theory, apply to methods rather than concepts, so if someone does patent "a one click shopping button" they should only hold patent for their implementation. The problem is both the misapplication of patents which appear to grant patents over any implementation, as well as patents over implementations which are too simple, such that anyone who wants to build a similar item would go to that implementation as an obvious solution.