5 ms·

I have a very simple fix to propose. Any patent claim that is or could be implemented in computer software in whole or in part is automatically invalid. Accusin

I have a very simple fix to propose. Any patent claim that is or could be implemented in computer software in whole or in part is automatically invalid. Accusing a computer program of infringing is prima facie evidence of invalidity. That would fix pretty much all the nonsense of garbage software and business method patents overnight. It would eliminate nearly all patent trolling. And not a single patent that actually provides effective incentives to advances the arts, technologies, or sciences would be affected.

Buttons840 13y ago
The purpose of the patent system is to incentivise inventors to reveal their inventions in exchange for a monopoly on the idea. This way, inventions are not lost and society doesn't slide backwards. Imagine someone invented a pill to cure cancer, but kept the details secret and then died; we would lose his invention (a silly example, but it illustrates the point). I believe patent applicants should have to argue how difficult it would be for a peer in the industry to reproduce their work. If you develop an expensive new pill to cure a major disease, we'll give you a patent in exchange for you revealing the details of your important invention. Future generations will benefit. If you put a one click purchase feature on your website, it may be a new idea, but there are tens of thousands capable of reproducing your "invention" on their own. It is a new idea, so grant a short patent (maybe 5 years?) but it hurts instead of helps society to grant a 20 year patent.
- thwarted 13y ago
  Imagine someone invented a pill to cure cancer, but kept the details secret and then died; we would lose his invention (a silly example, but it illustrates the point). This is not only a silly example, but a bad one. If society never learns that it existed before it was lost, society didn't lose anything because it never had it to begin with. If you can't remember the dream you don't know you had, did you actually forget it?
  - Buttons840 13y ago
    I meant the person released to pill to the public, but never revealed the "secret formulate". Though, I never actually said that. Again, silly example. Said another way, I believe the purpose of patents is to get innovations documented rather than kept secret.
    - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
      That is the quid pro quo of patents - early and full disclosure of the invention sufficient to reproduce it [for a practitioner of the relevant art] in exchange for a "limited" monopoly.
      - thwarted 13y ago
        This line of thought made me think of utility of the monopoly on the ownership of the patent vs the utility of the monopoly on the exploitation of the patent. This is a distinction that I don't think is often considered, perhaps because "ownership" of something, at least in the US, has do-whatever-it-is-that-I-want-with-it, including the option of not doing anything, cultural aspect. That is, should the quid pro quo of being granted the limited monopoly require the grantee to still provide for the public good by actually doing something with it, rather than just sitting on it or attempting to exploit those who are doing something with it? So, the public grants you a monopoly on the exploitation of the invention for a limited time in exchange for making the invention public. But purely attacking the public, using the patent as a bat to beat others with, is not part of this exchange because the patent itself is not the invention. Really, shit-or-get-off-the-pot of patent granting. In exchange for publicizing the invention, you get a limited monopoly on the exploitation of the invention, not on the exploitation of the patent.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Software patents rarely provide enough detail to reproduce, so there would be no loss. And one click purchase is a terrible example to use, because there is no way to use such a thing as a trade secret, since it's a frontend innovation.
  - Buttons840 13y ago
    I failed to explain myself clearly. I am arguing that front end innovations, especially software innovations, shouldn't be patentable. Or at least grant them a shorter 5 year patent. I don't believe patenting things that are easily reproducible, like software, benefits society.

Buttons840 13y ago

The purpose of the patent system is to incentivise inventors to reveal their inventions in exchange for a monopoly on the idea. This way, inventions are not lost and society doesn't slide backwards. Imagine someone invented a pill to cure cancer, but kept the details secret and then died; we would lose his invention (a silly example, but it illustrates the point). I believe patent applicants should have to argue how difficult it would be for a peer in the industry to reproduce their work. If you develop an expensive new pill to cure a major disease, we'll give you a patent in exchange for you revealing the details of your important invention. Future generations will benefit. If you put a one click purchase feature on your website, it may be a new idea, but there are tens of thousands capable of reproducing your "invention" on their own. It is a new idea, so grant a short patent (maybe 5 years?) but it hurts instead of helps society to grant a 20 year patent.

thwarted 13y ago
Imagine someone invented a pill to cure cancer, but kept the details secret and then died; we would lose his invention (a silly example, but it illustrates the point). This is not only a silly example, but a bad one. If society never learns that it existed before it was lost, society didn't lose anything because it never had it to begin with. If you can't remember the dream you don't know you had, did you actually forget it?
- Buttons840 13y ago
  I meant the person released to pill to the public, but never revealed the "secret formulate". Though, I never actually said that. Again, silly example. Said another way, I believe the purpose of patents is to get innovations documented rather than kept secret.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    That is the quid pro quo of patents - early and full disclosure of the invention sufficient to reproduce it [for a practitioner of the relevant art] in exchange for a "limited" monopoly.
    - thwarted 13y ago
      This line of thought made me think of utility of the monopoly on the ownership of the patent vs the utility of the monopoly on the exploitation of the patent. This is a distinction that I don't think is often considered, perhaps because "ownership" of something, at least in the US, has do-whatever-it-is-that-I-want-with-it, including the option of not doing anything, cultural aspect. That is, should the quid pro quo of being granted the limited monopoly require the grantee to still provide for the public good by actually doing something with it, rather than just sitting on it or attempting to exploit those who are doing something with it? So, the public grants you a monopoly on the exploitation of the invention for a limited time in exchange for making the invention public. But purely attacking the public, using the patent as a bat to beat others with, is not part of this exchange because the patent itself is not the invention. Really, shit-or-get-off-the-pot of patent granting. In exchange for publicizing the invention, you get a limited monopoly on the exploitation of the invention, not on the exploitation of the patent.
Dylan16807 13y ago
Software patents rarely provide enough detail to reproduce, so there would be no loss. And one click purchase is a terrible example to use, because there is no way to use such a thing as a trade secret, since it's a frontend innovation.
- Buttons840 13y ago
  I failed to explain myself clearly. I am arguing that front end innovations, especially software innovations, shouldn't be patentable. Or at least grant them a shorter 5 year patent. I don't believe patenting things that are easily reproducible, like software, benefits society.