3 ms·

What if civil engineers could file a patent that looked like that following: A method and system for crossing a body of water via a constructed object. The cus

by tsally 17y ago

What if civil engineers could file a patent that looked like that following: A method and system for crossing a body of water via a constructed object. The customer starts on one side of the water and walks across the object to the other side. Your average software patent is roughly equivalent to a patent on the concept of a bridge. If there are useful software patents, they've been overshadowed by the large number of abusive ones.

miloshh 17y ago
Are you sure that's the typical software patent? Some famous law-suits were about patents that are far less trivial than your bridge example. For example, Pixar holds a patent on Monte Carlo sampling, and has sued or threatened a number of companies that used any sort of randomization in their rendering algorithms. This despite the fact that Monte Carlo methods have been known and used for many decades before Pixar was started. The issue here is not that the concept of Monte Carlo integration is trivial, but instead that Pixar's contribution to it is so tiny compared to the previous state of the art that it should not give them a "right" to own the whole field. Similarly, some lawsuits were about compression algorithms if I remeber right. Same issue here - it's not that a given compression algorithm is trivial, it is more the fact that it is probably a tiny increment on the top of existing compression techniques, and anybody that also builds on the known ideas should not be threatened by loosely related patents. Of course, patents are a problem that should be addressed, but I don't think trying to prove that software patents are somehow different than others is the right way.
- akeefer 17y ago
  Well, I'm biased because my company is basically being sued over a patent that is, essentially, about as broad as bridge building (i.e. someone else essentially claims to have patented the idea of storing insurance claims in a database. Seriously.) But they are fundamentally different in that software is already protected by copyright the same way any other creative work is. Copyright and patent protection are two sides of the same coin that are there in, according to the US Constitution (European theory on the origin of IP rights is different), to provide an incentive to create new things. Unlike a chemical formula or a mechanical invention, the software itself is already protected by copyright, just like a novel or a painting is. It's basically the only thing that I can think of that's protected by both copyright and patent protection. In many ways, patenting a software system is far more akin to patenting a novel or a how-to book (I'm patenting the idea of a hero that fights an evil villain, and I'm patenting the idea of explaining to people how to fix a leaky faucet). Again, patents are constitutionally granted on a pragmatic basis rather than on the grounds of some inherent right, so I think it's a perfectly valid to attack them on the grounds that they do more harm than good, and it's also perfectly valid to point out that they are categorically different than patents on mechanical or chemical inventions.
- michaelneale 17y ago
  That is most definitely like a typical software patent.
- anamax 17y ago
  > For example, Pixar holds a patent on Monte Carlo sampling, and has sued or threatened a number of companies that used any sort of randomization in their rendering algorithms. Actually, Pixar has a patent on certain uses of randomization in rendering. In patent-speak, randomization is the mechanism and rendering is the result. I mention patent-speak because patents are the use of mechanism to accomplish result. Would you object to a patent on certain uses of a lever to close a gate? (Ignoring novelty issues - closing gates with levers is well known now, while using randomization in rendering was presumably new when Pixar did their thing.) In patent-speak, the lever is the mechanism while closing the gate is the result. If not, then you're arguing that a lever as a mechanism is somehow different from randomization as a mechanism. If so, you're pretty much arguing against all patents (using mechanism to accomplish result).
  - miloshh 17y ago
    I'm mostly arguing against patenting trivial increments over non-trivial ideas. It has been long known that MC can be applied to computing any integral over any domain, so computing the integral of color over a pixel is simply a specialization of a general technique, and should not be patented. Similarly, in akeefer's post above, storing insurance claims in a relational database is a specialization of the well known process of storing anything in a database, so should not be patented.
chancho 17y ago
Were it not for prior art, I'm sure the design for a bridge could be patented. And then someone would invent a truss bridge, a covered bridge, an arch bridge, a cable stayed bridge, etc. each getting a patent because each improves on the state of the art. You can patent just about any physical implement. The reason "obvious" stuff (physical equivalents of OneClick) are not patentable is due to prior art dating back to the stone age. Now computers have opened up a land rush on pure mathematics, which used to not be patentable but now is through clever wording. IMO this needs to be resolved by legislation (whichever way you come down on the debate.) The existing patent framework is just not designed for it. So bringing it up before the supreme court is a good step forward.
- tsally 17y ago
  The design for an implementation of a bridge, not for all bridges. Most software patents try to patent all bridges.
- prodigal_erik 17y ago
  "Land rush on pure mathematics" is exactly right. They're being allowed to essentially claim the entire problem, rather than a specific solution which happens to be better than well-known alternatives the industry is still free to use.
- zaphar 17y ago
  What's interesting about what you just stated is that the only reason current patents don't stifle innovation is that there is enough unpatented prior art that someone can build a bridge. If someone did patent a simple bridge as stated above no one could build a truss bridge cause it would infringe. It would in effect stifle innovation. Patents only work when in old industries?
SamAtt 17y ago
I'm not saying the patent system doesn't need repair but I don't think the problems are as broad as your example lays them out to be. Whenever someone tries to make such a broad patent it's almost always knocked down by the prior art clause (the example you gave would only work if no one had ever put a piece of wood over a puddle to get across before) I personally favor the establishment of some kind of universal license fee that prevents patent holders from hoarding an innovation or charging ridiculous prices for others to use it. That way those who created a concept still get their just due while not being able to prevent anyone from using their patents to innovate.
HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago
I don't know what the "average" software patent looks like, but as someone who has been through the process, I think the examiners are pretty thorough. Through over a year of communication back and forth we lost our most recent patent attempt because the examiner found enough cases of prior art that were similar enough to what we were doing to fail the "not obvious to person skilled in the art" test. And trust me, we tried to find differences, and they were always able to answer our rebuttals with specific examples. I'm sure there are good examiners and bad ones. Perhaps this time we just got one who was very thorough, but having looked at a number of software patents in my field, I've yet to see anything that I could consider trivial.
gills 17y ago
So you throw out the ambiguous and obvious patents. It doesn't mean you throw out the entire IP framework. This is akin to the folks who claim we should go back to physical gold as money because fiat money has been abused. Fiat money isn't evil, it's incredibly useful, but we've failed to stem the corruption in our government that allows it to be abused. My point is that the abuse of a system does not make that system inherently evil, it just means we need to learn from the mistakes and mature as a society. Lean towards overturning the lame software patents for a couple decades and tighten up the standards for new ones.
- cwp 17y ago
  Who said "inherently evil?" On the whole, I'd say that software patents do more harm than good, and should be eliminated on that basis. I agree that it's not inherently evil doesn't mean we should do it.

by tsally 17y ago

miloshh 17y ago

Are you sure that's the typical software patent? Some famous law-suits were about patents that are far less trivial than your bridge example. For example, Pixar holds a patent on Monte Carlo sampling, and has sued or threatened a number of companies that used any sort of randomization in their rendering algorithms. This despite the fact that Monte Carlo methods have been known and used for many decades before Pixar was started. The issue here is not that the concept of Monte Carlo integration is trivial, but instead that Pixar's contribution to it is so tiny compared to the previous state of the art that it should not give them a "right" to own the whole field. Similarly, some lawsuits were about compression algorithms if I remeber right. Same issue here - it's not that a given compression algorithm is trivial, it is more the fact that it is probably a tiny increment on the top of existing compression techniques, and anybody that also builds on the known ideas should not be threatened by loosely related patents. Of course, patents are a problem that should be addressed, but I don't think trying to prove that software patents are somehow different than others is the right way.

akeefer 17y ago
Well, I'm biased because my company is basically being sued over a patent that is, essentially, about as broad as bridge building (i.e. someone else essentially claims to have patented the idea of storing insurance claims in a database. Seriously.) But they are fundamentally different in that software is already protected by copyright the same way any other creative work is. Copyright and patent protection are two sides of the same coin that are there in, according to the US Constitution (European theory on the origin of IP rights is different), to provide an incentive to create new things. Unlike a chemical formula or a mechanical invention, the software itself is already protected by copyright, just like a novel or a painting is. It's basically the only thing that I can think of that's protected by both copyright and patent protection. In many ways, patenting a software system is far more akin to patenting a novel or a how-to book (I'm patenting the idea of a hero that fights an evil villain, and I'm patenting the idea of explaining to people how to fix a leaky faucet). Again, patents are constitutionally granted on a pragmatic basis rather than on the grounds of some inherent right, so I think it's a perfectly valid to attack them on the grounds that they do more harm than good, and it's also perfectly valid to point out that they are categorically different than patents on mechanical or chemical inventions.
michaelneale 17y ago
That is most definitely like a typical software patent.
anamax 17y ago
> For example, Pixar holds a patent on Monte Carlo sampling, and has sued or threatened a number of companies that used any sort of randomization in their rendering algorithms. Actually, Pixar has a patent on certain uses of randomization in rendering. In patent-speak, randomization is the mechanism and rendering is the result. I mention patent-speak because patents are the use of mechanism to accomplish result. Would you object to a patent on certain uses of a lever to close a gate? (Ignoring novelty issues - closing gates with levers is well known now, while using randomization in rendering was presumably new when Pixar did their thing.) In patent-speak, the lever is the mechanism while closing the gate is the result. If not, then you're arguing that a lever as a mechanism is somehow different from randomization as a mechanism. If so, you're pretty much arguing against all patents (using mechanism to accomplish result).
- miloshh 17y ago
  I'm mostly arguing against patenting trivial increments over non-trivial ideas. It has been long known that MC can be applied to computing any integral over any domain, so computing the integral of color over a pixel is simply a specialization of a general technique, and should not be patented. Similarly, in akeefer's post above, storing insurance claims in a relational database is a specialization of the well known process of storing anything in a database, so should not be patented.

chancho 17y ago

Were it not for prior art, I'm sure the design for a bridge could be patented. And then someone would invent a truss bridge, a covered bridge, an arch bridge, a cable stayed bridge, etc. each getting a patent because each improves on the state of the art. You can patent just about any physical implement. The reason "obvious" stuff (physical equivalents of OneClick) are not patentable is due to prior art dating back to the stone age. Now computers have opened up a land rush on pure mathematics, which used to not be patentable but now is through clever wording. IMO this needs to be resolved by legislation (whichever way you come down on the debate.) The existing patent framework is just not designed for it. So bringing it up before the supreme court is a good step forward.

tsally 17y ago
The design for an implementation of a bridge, not for all bridges. Most software patents try to patent all bridges.
prodigal_erik 17y ago
"Land rush on pure mathematics" is exactly right. They're being allowed to essentially claim the entire problem, rather than a specific solution which happens to be better than well-known alternatives the industry is still free to use.
zaphar 17y ago
What's interesting about what you just stated is that the only reason current patents don't stifle innovation is that there is enough unpatented prior art that someone can build a bridge. If someone did patent a simple bridge as stated above no one could build a truss bridge cause it would infringe. It would in effect stifle innovation. Patents only work when in old industries?

SamAtt 17y ago

I'm not saying the patent system doesn't need repair but I don't think the problems are as broad as your example lays them out to be. Whenever someone tries to make such a broad patent it's almost always knocked down by the prior art clause (the example you gave would only work if no one had ever put a piece of wood over a puddle to get across before) I personally favor the establishment of some kind of universal license fee that prevents patent holders from hoarding an innovation or charging ridiculous prices for others to use it. That way those who created a concept still get their just due while not being able to prevent anyone from using their patents to innovate.

HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago

I don't know what the "average" software patent looks like, but as someone who has been through the process, I think the examiners are pretty thorough. Through over a year of communication back and forth we lost our most recent patent attempt because the examiner found enough cases of prior art that were similar enough to what we were doing to fail the "not obvious to person skilled in the art" test. And trust me, we tried to find differences, and they were always able to answer our rebuttals with specific examples. I'm sure there are good examiners and bad ones. Perhaps this time we just got one who was very thorough, but having looked at a number of software patents in my field, I've yet to see anything that I could consider trivial.

gills 17y ago

So you throw out the ambiguous and obvious patents. It doesn't mean you throw out the entire IP framework. This is akin to the folks who claim we should go back to physical gold as money because fiat money has been abused. Fiat money isn't evil, it's incredibly useful, but we've failed to stem the corruption in our government that allows it to be abused. My point is that the abuse of a system does not make that system inherently evil, it just means we need to learn from the mistakes and mature as a society. Lean towards overturning the lame software patents for a couple decades and tighten up the standards for new ones.

cwp 17y ago
Who said "inherently evil?" On the whole, I'd say that software patents do more harm than good, and should be eliminated on that basis. I agree that it's not inherently evil doesn't mean we should do it.