3 ms·

With competitors that do not have their liability of having funded years of research to advance the field, but have simply copied the idea after, often by rever

by ovi256 17y ago

With competitors that do not have their liability of having funded years of research to advance the field, but have simply copied the idea after, often by reverse-engineering, as the TFA states.

jacquesm 17y ago
Which is proof positive that it does not warrant a patent, since apparently having access to the input and the output data is enough to re-create the box in the middle. Besides that, such a big fuss over being able to 'bill a constant amount' month-to-month, it really is nothing but a business method, no matter how intricate the computations behind the scenes. It's a convenience at best, and one that I would assume would be re-creatable by any number of mathematicians given the assignment.
- timwiseman 17y ago
  It's a convenience at best, and one that I would assume would be re-creatable by any number of mathematicians given the assignment. But just about any patentable idea is recreatable by experts in that field if they are given that assignment. I do not claim to know whether or not this particular patent should have been granted, but I do not see why the fact that it can reverse engineered should be relevant.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Reverse-engineering and writing a spec is one of the ways you can legally get around trade secrets and copyright infringement claims, so if the patent does not stand it is very relevant indeed. Clean room development is usually (but not always) not enough to get around a patent though.
    - timwiseman 17y ago
      I must be misunderstanding something. I know that clean room implementation has been used to avoid trade secret and copyright claims, but that seems to have little relevance in this case. If anything, it seems to somewhat show the need to have a patent protect developments like this.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        I think it argues the exact opposite, if your device can simply be reverse engineered by observing the inputs and outputs then it shouldn't be patentable. That means you can treat it as a black box without any knowledge of what is going on inside and produce an identical black box with a possibly completely different implementation on the inside. These guys are essentially trying to patent something that can be expressed as a mathematical formula, and in my opinion that should not be possible. Reduce it to an absurdity, imagine the patent on 'Pi' or a patent on calculus. Does it seem 'right' to you that such a thing should be patentable ? If any group of mathematicians skilled in the art could come up with it that alone should have been grounds for dismissal, just being the first should not give you an automatic entitlement.

by ovi256 17y ago

With competitors that do not have their liability of having funded years of research to advance the field, but have simply copied the idea after, often by reverse-engineering, as the TFA states.

jacquesm 17y ago

Which is proof positive that it does not warrant a patent, since apparently having access to the input and the output data is enough to re-create the box in the middle. Besides that, such a big fuss over being able to 'bill a constant amount' month-to-month, it really is nothing but a business method, no matter how intricate the computations behind the scenes. It's a convenience at best, and one that I would assume would be re-creatable by any number of mathematicians given the assignment.

timwiseman 17y ago
It's a convenience at best, and one that I would assume would be re-creatable by any number of mathematicians given the assignment. But just about any patentable idea is recreatable by experts in that field if they are given that assignment. I do not claim to know whether or not this particular patent should have been granted, but I do not see why the fact that it can reverse engineered should be relevant.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Reverse-engineering and writing a spec is one of the ways you can legally get around trade secrets and copyright infringement claims, so if the patent does not stand it is very relevant indeed. Clean room development is usually (but not always) not enough to get around a patent though.
  - timwiseman 17y ago
    I must be misunderstanding something. I know that clean room implementation has been used to avoid trade secret and copyright claims, but that seems to have little relevance in this case. If anything, it seems to somewhat show the need to have a patent protect developments like this.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      I think it argues the exact opposite, if your device can simply be reverse engineered by observing the inputs and outputs then it shouldn't be patentable. That means you can treat it as a black box without any knowledge of what is going on inside and produce an identical black box with a possibly completely different implementation on the inside. These guys are essentially trying to patent something that can be expressed as a mathematical formula, and in my opinion that should not be possible. Reduce it to an absurdity, imagine the patent on 'Pi' or a patent on calculus. Does it seem 'right' to you that such a thing should be patentable ? If any group of mathematicians skilled in the art could come up with it that alone should have been grounds for dismissal, just being the first should not give you an automatic entitlement.