7 ms·

> [A] computer process that enables a single machine to distribute a single information identifier and provide that to multiple “rules of thumb” so that each “r

> [A] computer process that enables a single machine to distribute a single information identifier and provide that to multiple “rules of thumb” so that each “rule of thumb” can search different locations using different criteria designed for that location is a major innovation in computer science; it improves the speed and efficiency of the computer and generates more useful results. It is not an abstract idea. Thanks to Apple, we now have the technology to pass a parameter to multiple functions implementing the same interface. Incredible!

radicalbyte 12y ago
That's insane, I implemented something similar 12 years ago, a massive hack-up involving Excel, MS Access and PHP. If a clueless (in hindsight; I thought I was God's gift back then, a super VBA ninja) kid can "invent" something, then it's the textbook definition of "obvious". EDIT: their patent predates this. if someone somewhere is unlucky enough to still be using my fantastic invention, now might be a good time to find an alternative..
- andybak 12y ago
  This is the part of the software patent I've never understood. Surely if the standard of "non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art" was applied sensibly then most of the more absurd patents wouldn't be granted. Of course there is the 'obvious in hindsight' problem but this test has been weakened beyond all recognition.
  - revelation 12y ago
    We don't even need to look to that subjective standard. We grant people exclusive rights or patents for sharing novel techniques with other people skilled in the art, yet I have never seen a professional software programmer look to patents for information or algorithms. It just doesn't happen. So the tradeoff here is exclusive rights for zero public benefits. That is not the way it was intended.
    - ScottBurson 12y ago
      You wouldn't necessarily read the actual patent, but it could happen that you read a conference paper, or attend the presentation, and then learn that the technique described in it is the subject of a patent application. The paper will still be a better source of information than the patent. I don't know how often this happens, but I have seen it.
    - sanxiyn 12y ago
      I work on compilers, and while I don't read patents, I read papers which explain patented ideas. I think it is reasonable to assume that some of compiler-related papers from, say, IBM, wouldn't have been published and kept secret if IBM couldn't file patents before publishing papers. So "programmers don't read patents" does not prove "zero public benefits", because I think it is more like "programmers do read materials which wouldn't have been published if they couldn't be patented".
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        Are some of those papers also defensive publications to prevent others from patenting the ideas?
    - reitanqild 12y ago
      I used to work with software that used SIFT. And I am sometimes a programmer.
  - Natsu 12y ago
    Yeah, one would think that a widely infringed patent was a good signal that it was already obvious to those skilled in the art, but the patent bar seems to have this fantasy where people are reading patents and cackling gleefully stealing all the ideas from them. So they see it more as "massive business opportunity" than a signal that the system is not providing the alleged benefit to the public. And to be honest, from those I've discussed it with, they are largely concerned with monetization and don't give a damn about any sort of public benefit.
seanflyon 12y ago
My, isn't that a novel idea.
josephschmoe 12y ago
This would be like trying to patent the letter 'A.' Sure, it was a great idea and sure, it's incredibly important. But it's been a thing since way before you were born.
- Crito 12y ago
  The best comparison to patenting shit like that which I have thought of is an author trying to patent "novel" grammatical constructs in English. Even if it is genuinely novel (unlikely) and a non-obvious innovation (also unlikely), is that really something that we should consider patentable?
  - josaka 12y ago
    I suspect novel grammatical constructs in English would fail part one of the patent-eligibility test: does the idea fall within one of the four permissible classes, those being process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html. If it was deemed to fall within one of those categories, then it'd still have to qualify as either being non-abstract or, if abstract, having some further technical advance.
    - Crito 12y ago
      I am not talking about the current state of patent law in the US. I am talking about the patentability of software in general. Not as the US implements it, but as it could ever be implemented, by anyone.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      > does the idea fall within one of the four permissible classes, those being process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. It would be a process in exactly the way that software is. Obviously the process can be carried out by a human (as can software), but never mind that, we'll just tack on a prior art typewriter or computer input device to make it a machine, right? This whole mess is a result of the Federal Circuit reading everything too broadly. "Process" traditionally meant a manufacturing process or the like. If I'm not mistaken the only "software" patent the Supreme Court has found valid covered a manufacturing process. And that's where software patents should live, if anywhere. Covering novel machines that happen to require some computation rather than novel computations that happen to be done by a machine.

radicalbyte 12y ago

That's insane, I implemented something similar 12 years ago, a massive hack-up involving Excel, MS Access and PHP. If a clueless (in hindsight; I thought I was God's gift back then, a super VBA ninja) kid can "invent" something, then it's the textbook definition of "obvious". EDIT: their patent predates this. if someone somewhere is unlucky enough to still be using my fantastic invention, now might be a good time to find an alternative..

andybak 12y ago
This is the part of the software patent I've never understood. Surely if the standard of "non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art" was applied sensibly then most of the more absurd patents wouldn't be granted. Of course there is the 'obvious in hindsight' problem but this test has been weakened beyond all recognition.
- revelation 12y ago
  We don't even need to look to that subjective standard. We grant people exclusive rights or patents for sharing novel techniques with other people skilled in the art, yet I have never seen a professional software programmer look to patents for information or algorithms. It just doesn't happen. So the tradeoff here is exclusive rights for zero public benefits. That is not the way it was intended.
  - ScottBurson 12y ago
    You wouldn't necessarily read the actual patent, but it could happen that you read a conference paper, or attend the presentation, and then learn that the technique described in it is the subject of a patent application. The paper will still be a better source of information than the patent. I don't know how often this happens, but I have seen it.
  - sanxiyn 12y ago
    I work on compilers, and while I don't read patents, I read papers which explain patented ideas. I think it is reasonable to assume that some of compiler-related papers from, say, IBM, wouldn't have been published and kept secret if IBM couldn't file patents before publishing papers. So "programmers don't read patents" does not prove "zero public benefits", because I think it is more like "programmers do read materials which wouldn't have been published if they couldn't be patented".
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      Are some of those papers also defensive publications to prevent others from patenting the ideas?
  - reitanqild 12y ago
    I used to work with software that used SIFT. And I am sometimes a programmer.
- Natsu 12y ago
  Yeah, one would think that a widely infringed patent was a good signal that it was already obvious to those skilled in the art, but the patent bar seems to have this fantasy where people are reading patents and cackling gleefully stealing all the ideas from them. So they see it more as "massive business opportunity" than a signal that the system is not providing the alleged benefit to the public. And to be honest, from those I've discussed it with, they are largely concerned with monetization and don't give a damn about any sort of public benefit.

seanflyon 12y ago

My, isn't that a novel idea.

josephschmoe 12y ago

This would be like trying to patent the letter 'A.' Sure, it was a great idea and sure, it's incredibly important. But it's been a thing since way before you were born.

Crito 12y ago
The best comparison to patenting shit like that which I have thought of is an author trying to patent "novel" grammatical constructs in English. Even if it is genuinely novel (unlikely) and a non-obvious innovation (also unlikely), is that really something that we should consider patentable?
- josaka 12y ago
  I suspect novel grammatical constructs in English would fail part one of the patent-eligibility test: does the idea fall within one of the four permissible classes, those being process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html. If it was deemed to fall within one of those categories, then it'd still have to qualify as either being non-abstract or, if abstract, having some further technical advance.
  - Crito 12y ago
    I am not talking about the current state of patent law in the US. I am talking about the patentability of software in general. Not as the US implements it, but as it could ever be implemented, by anyone.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > does the idea fall within one of the four permissible classes, those being process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. It would be a process in exactly the way that software is. Obviously the process can be carried out by a human (as can software), but never mind that, we'll just tack on a prior art typewriter or computer input device to make it a machine, right? This whole mess is a result of the Federal Circuit reading everything too broadly. "Process" traditionally meant a manufacturing process or the like. If I'm not mistaken the only "software" patent the Supreme Court has found valid covered a manufacturing process. And that's where software patents should live, if anywhere. Covering novel machines that happen to require some computation rather than novel computations that happen to be done by a machine.