3 ms·

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, Pix

by 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.

by miloshh 17y ago

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.