5 ms·

>Well, actually, it does help a lot. In particular, they said ""claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract id

>Well, actually, it does help a lot. In particular, they said ""claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention"" Historically, federal circuit precedent said exactly the opposite - that when a generic computer was programmed for a specific purpose, it was now a special purpose machine and patentable. 1) Your argument does not refute the GP's statement. A "specific purpose" is not necessarily an "abstract idea", depending on how the claims are structured. A claim saying "presenting ads in such a way that it is unobtrusive on a computer" is an abstract idea[1]. A claim that specifies how a computer can, say, examine visual or DOM elements on a page to determine where to place ads such as not to be obtrusive, is much more concrete. 2) A generic computer running a program is a special purpose machine: it's now doing things it could not do before it was programmed to do so, and as such, it is performing potentially novel functionality. Otherwise, in my mind, you might as well argue "a kitchen knife could not be a murder weapon because it's a kitchen knife." > This decision should, if the federal circuit actually follows it, knock out a large set of software patents. I've looked only at a few particular areas, but all the "old idea, only on a computer / on the Internet" patents I've seen so far (like [1]) the one should have expired by now. However this is purely anecdotal, of course. 1. Such a claim (I only paraphrased it a bit) exists, and was referenced in one of Lemley's papers. On mobile so can't find it right away.

DannyBee 12y ago
"2)a generic computer running a program is a special purpose machine: it's now doing things it could not do before it was programmed to do so" This is of course false. It always could do them, it just wasn't told to. To view it otherwise is nuts. Otherwise, I could argue that when you think about things, you are activating new pathways in your brain, forming neural connections that didn't exist, and otherwise changing and programming the state of your brain to know and do things it could not before.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  > It always could do them, it just wasn't told to. "A board, spring and wires could always trap a mouse, they just weren't configured to do so." How is programming a computer different from assembling existing components in a new arrangement to make a new machine? > otherwise changing and programming the state of your brain to know and do things it could not before. Not a neuroscientist, and this risks derailing the thread, but isn't that exactly how brains and learning work? This has also been observed at the macro level, e.g. that study where London cabbies' brains were found to have enlarged portions that dealt with spatial processing.
  - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
    A board, spring, and wires is a bit different from a programmable computer, because the computer was designed to be programmable. Putting a program in changes the computer's state, true, but it's changing it to a state that it was designed to be able to achieve. That difference ruins your mousetrap analogy.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    ""A board, spring and wires could always trap a mouse, they just weren't configured to do so." How is programming a computer different from assembling existing components in a new arrangement to make a new machine?" You are not "assembling existing components in a new arrangement with a computer". Also, if I gave you a board, a spring, and wires, you could not trap a mouse with them. You actually have to physically change them to accomplish anything. The spring won't stick to the board by itself, etc. You are also taking things that were previously limited in some way (a board is not elastic, etc), and assembling them into a new thing that is not so limited. When you program a computer, you are not changing the computer in any way, shape, or form. It was never limited. By programming it, you are doing exactly what it was built to do: Be programmable. You are simply picking a subset of the things it could already do, and saying "do this subset". The computer, no matter how hard you program it, will never trap a mouse. It is the building of the computer that was the hard part. You, on the other hand, are always operating entirely within the existing limits of the computer. "Not a neuroscientist, and this risks derailing the thread, but isn't that exactly how brains and learning work? This has also been observed at the macro level, e.g. that study where London cabbies' brains were found to have enlarged portions that dealt with spatial processing. " Yes, this is exactly how they work. That's my point. By your argument, you can replace "computer implemented" with brain implemented, and end up with the same patentable result. Given that, i'm arguing there is nothing special, at all, about computers, or implementing things using them, any more than thinking about things or learning to play guitar. Enlarging the center for spatial processing in cabbies is something the brain was meant to do. The cabbies did not create it out of whole cloth. They did nothing but exercise their normal skill in spatial reasoning, and their brain did all the actual work. Programming a brain does not make them do new things they could not do. It simply tells them what task to perform. IE There are a set of tasks they can both perform. That set of tasks is fixed at creation, both of brains, and computers. You cannot make lasers shoot of your eyes no matter how hard you try. Much like a brain implemented invention, a computer one is just picking a certain task the computer already could do.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> A generic computer running a program is a special purpose machine: it's now doing things it could not do before it was programmed to do so, and as such, it is performing potentially novel functionality. Otherwise, in my mind, you might as well argue "a kitchen knife could not be a murder weapon because it's a kitchen knife." I don't think that analogy goes where you want it to go. Suppose that a kitchen knife exists in the prior art and you want to get a patent on "homicide weapon with hand grip and pointed edge." That which infringes if later anticipates if earlier. So if the kitchen knife would infringe that patent then it's also novelty destroying.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  I meant the kitchen knife analogy as more of a general illustration that actual use of something is more important than straightforward interpretation of that object's purported purpose, rather than as a case of patentability :-) I fully agree that the use of kitchen knife as a murder weapon would be non-novel, given that sharp objects have been used to cause death since prehistoric times, as well as obvious, given that sharp objects are known to cause bodily harm, which is known to cause death.

DannyBee 12y ago

"2)a generic computer running a program is a special purpose machine: it's now doing things it could not do before it was programmed to do so" This is of course false. It always could do them, it just wasn't told to. To view it otherwise is nuts. Otherwise, I could argue that when you think about things, you are activating new pathways in your brain, forming neural connections that didn't exist, and otherwise changing and programming the state of your brain to know and do things it could not before.

throwawaykf05 12y ago
> It always could do them, it just wasn't told to. "A board, spring and wires could always trap a mouse, they just weren't configured to do so." How is programming a computer different from assembling existing components in a new arrangement to make a new machine? > otherwise changing and programming the state of your brain to know and do things it could not before. Not a neuroscientist, and this risks derailing the thread, but isn't that exactly how brains and learning work? This has also been observed at the macro level, e.g. that study where London cabbies' brains were found to have enlarged portions that dealt with spatial processing.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  A board, spring, and wires is a bit different from a programmable computer, because the computer was designed to be programmable. Putting a program in changes the computer's state, true, but it's changing it to a state that it was designed to be able to achieve. That difference ruins your mousetrap analogy.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  ""A board, spring and wires could always trap a mouse, they just weren't configured to do so." How is programming a computer different from assembling existing components in a new arrangement to make a new machine?" You are not "assembling existing components in a new arrangement with a computer". Also, if I gave you a board, a spring, and wires, you could not trap a mouse with them. You actually have to physically change them to accomplish anything. The spring won't stick to the board by itself, etc. You are also taking things that were previously limited in some way (a board is not elastic, etc), and assembling them into a new thing that is not so limited. When you program a computer, you are not changing the computer in any way, shape, or form. It was never limited. By programming it, you are doing exactly what it was built to do: Be programmable. You are simply picking a subset of the things it could already do, and saying "do this subset". The computer, no matter how hard you program it, will never trap a mouse. It is the building of the computer that was the hard part. You, on the other hand, are always operating entirely within the existing limits of the computer. "Not a neuroscientist, and this risks derailing the thread, but isn't that exactly how brains and learning work? This has also been observed at the macro level, e.g. that study where London cabbies' brains were found to have enlarged portions that dealt with spatial processing. " Yes, this is exactly how they work. That's my point. By your argument, you can replace "computer implemented" with brain implemented, and end up with the same patentable result. Given that, i'm arguing there is nothing special, at all, about computers, or implementing things using them, any more than thinking about things or learning to play guitar. Enlarging the center for spatial processing in cabbies is something the brain was meant to do. The cabbies did not create it out of whole cloth. They did nothing but exercise their normal skill in spatial reasoning, and their brain did all the actual work. Programming a brain does not make them do new things they could not do. It simply tells them what task to perform. IE There are a set of tasks they can both perform. That set of tasks is fixed at creation, both of brains, and computers. You cannot make lasers shoot of your eyes no matter how hard you try. Much like a brain implemented invention, a computer one is just picking a certain task the computer already could do.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> A generic computer running a program is a special purpose machine: it's now doing things it could not do before it was programmed to do so, and as such, it is performing potentially novel functionality. Otherwise, in my mind, you might as well argue "a kitchen knife could not be a murder weapon because it's a kitchen knife." I don't think that analogy goes where you want it to go. Suppose that a kitchen knife exists in the prior art and you want to get a patent on "homicide weapon with hand grip and pointed edge." That which infringes if later anticipates if earlier. So if the kitchen knife would infringe that patent then it's also novelty destroying.

throwawaykf05 12y ago
I meant the kitchen knife analogy as more of a general illustration that actual use of something is more important than straightforward interpretation of that object's purported purpose, rather than as a case of patentability :-) I fully agree that the use of kitchen knife as a murder weapon would be non-novel, given that sharp objects have been used to cause death since prehistoric times, as well as obvious, given that sharp objects are known to cause bodily harm, which is known to cause death.