5 ms·

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

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.

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.