4 ms·

A system that takes a free-form text query for places and tries all possible interpretations to find a match based (somehow) on a history of places for that use

by anon4 12y ago

A system that takes a free-form text query for places and tries all possible interpretations to find a match based (somehow) on a history of places for that user (history in the general term, the way I read it, it can be places the user has been, places the user has searched, places whose shape look like the user's face, etc) and a global geospatial database. So, a fancy parser, a per-user list of places of potential interest and a Solr collection with geospatial data. P.S. the irony is that at no point in that overly verbose spec, is there anything that in any way tells you how to build that system. It's like patenting a device for enabling one to force a resistance against achieving minimum possible potential energy in a gravity field upon a mass of fluid, i.e. the concept of a bucket (or a glass, or the act of cupping your palms). And while that is surely only the preface of the patent, I seriously doubt the body is any more illuminating. Maybe while completely abolishing software patents remains impossible, we should try to enact reform that forces them to be specific enough that just by reading the patent one would be able to write a program that performs the actions described therein. Even if it's just "take a solr server, configure it like this, take this particular natural language parser, generate the possible forms of the query like so...". At least then they would be useful in a decade or so.

euank 12y ago
This is one of the reasons software patents are dumb imo; they don't actually share sufficient details to implement the idea any more easily. In other fields, such as mechanical engineering, patents are required to describe an invention in enough detail that a person "skilled in the art" could reproduce it. In the field of software, the patent merely has to describe the invention (software) well enough that it can be identified, not written. To match other fields, where it's common to require essentially full bluprints, it would make sense to require working source code (if only a reference implementation) for any software patent. As is, the patenter "gifts" the public with the knowledge of an idea which is rarely in itself useful; the source code could at least be potentially useful.
- WildUtah 12y ago
  From Fonar v. GE, 1996: “As a general rule, where software constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an invention, description of such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the software. This is because, normally, writing code for such software is within the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been disclosed. * * * Thus, flow charts or source code listings are not a requirement for adequately disclosing the functions of software.” [0] The patent lawyers have figured out that requiring that software patents make sense and reveal actual new engineering knowledge would make them useless for extracting cash for lawyers from actual working programmers. [0] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1229938.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1229938.html
  - euank 12y ago
    I understand that logic and have heard it before. However, it has a fundamental problem. Patents do not protect abstract ideas; they protect concrete inventions. I cannot patent "a means of traveling backwards in time" because that is an idea. As far as we know it's also impossible. You can't get a patent on "A surface that has zero friction" unless you also create that surface and explain how to do so. The idea that any physicist who is "skilled in the art" could figure out how to create such a surface from the laws of physics (which it surely must follow) is silly. On the other hand, software patents are exactly like that. I can patent "A method whereby clicking a button solves P=NP" and simply claim that the solution is produced somehow. I have to give no example implementation or even very specific details. This is highly at odds with other industries. I do understand the legality of it, but it's still significantly different than other fields and leads to inane results.
  - sergiosgc 12y ago
    Amazing. That fact, alone, discredits software patents. For patents to have any social value, they must be protecting intellectual property that is difficult to reproduce. The assertion here is the reverse: in software, implementation, after description of the function, is so easy it does not merit description. If it is so, then software requires no patent protection in the first place.

by anon4 12y ago

euank 12y ago

This is one of the reasons software patents are dumb imo; they don't actually share sufficient details to implement the idea any more easily. In other fields, such as mechanical engineering, patents are required to describe an invention in enough detail that a person "skilled in the art" could reproduce it. In the field of software, the patent merely has to describe the invention (software) well enough that it can be identified, not written. To match other fields, where it's common to require essentially full bluprints, it would make sense to require working source code (if only a reference implementation) for any software patent. As is, the patenter "gifts" the public with the knowledge of an idea which is rarely in itself useful; the source code could at least be potentially useful.

WildUtah 12y ago
From Fonar v. GE, 1996: “As a general rule, where software constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an invention, description of such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the software. This is because, normally, writing code for such software is within the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been disclosed. * * * Thus, flow charts or source code listings are not a requirement for adequately disclosing the functions of software.” [0] The patent lawyers have figured out that requiring that software patents make sense and reveal actual new engineering knowledge would make them useless for extracting cash for lawyers from actual working programmers. [0] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1229938.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1229938.html
- euank 12y ago
  I understand that logic and have heard it before. However, it has a fundamental problem. Patents do not protect abstract ideas; they protect concrete inventions. I cannot patent "a means of traveling backwards in time" because that is an idea. As far as we know it's also impossible. You can't get a patent on "A surface that has zero friction" unless you also create that surface and explain how to do so. The idea that any physicist who is "skilled in the art" could figure out how to create such a surface from the laws of physics (which it surely must follow) is silly. On the other hand, software patents are exactly like that. I can patent "A method whereby clicking a button solves P=NP" and simply claim that the solution is produced somehow. I have to give no example implementation or even very specific details. This is highly at odds with other industries. I do understand the legality of it, but it's still significantly different than other fields and leads to inane results.
- sergiosgc 12y ago
  Amazing. That fact, alone, discredits software patents. For patents to have any social value, they must be protecting intellectual property that is difficult to reproduce. The assertion here is the reverse: in software, implementation, after description of the function, is so easy it does not merit description. If it is so, then software requires no patent protection in the first place.