5 ms·

Assuming that is true, and while IANAL I read it that way too, it is baffling that someone in the patent office can read something like this and not feel compel

Assuming that is true, and while IANAL I read it that way too, it is baffling that someone in the patent office can read something like this and not feel compelled to laugh and toss it in the dustbin. Replace 'network carrier' with 'fishmonger', 'device' with 'person', and 'network' with 'fish' and you can probably find prior art that predates recorded history.

thaumasiotes 11y ago
I also have the urge to laugh and toss the patent in the trash, but I don't think your example helps the case, and it might hurt. Replacing 'network carrier' with 'fishmonger' and 'network' with 'fish' works fine, but... If I say "I've created a machine that can do something humans used to have to do themselves"... is it really obvious that, based on that description alone, I should be ineligible for a patent? Substituting a new process that uses a device for an old process that uses a person is significant. You can't swap between the concepts without triggering an entirely different context.
- falcolas 11y ago
  > Substituting a new process that uses a device for an old process that uses a person The thing is, processes are not patentable. The problem lies in the fact that there's a loophole which allows processes to be patented if they include the phrase "implemented on a machine". This loophole is the problem, since it makes something previously unpatentable (such as mathematics, business logic) patentable.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    OK, look. Carrying water up a hill in buckets is a process for raising the water. Using an Archimedes screw is also a process for raising the water. Yet the Archimedes screw is (conceptually) patentable. Feel free to rephrase my earlier comment to say "A machine that does what used to require a person is significant". In fact, I'm pretty sure I used that phrasing myself just one sentence earlier -- compare "a machine that can do something humans used to have to do themselves". There's no reason a machine that can negotiate for you shouldn't be patentable, any more than a machine that can wash your clothes for you shouldn't be patentable. The problem here is that it's a stupid-obvious idea.
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      But here we have patented the whole concept of lifting water uphill. I don't need this patent to reproduce the functionality of their system. Ergo it is not patentable.
    - riskable 11y ago
      Ah but there's a big difference: The Archimedes screw is a novel device with a unique design that's significantly different from other solutions for performing the same task (moving water up a hill). The Google patent here describes the mere process of picking a vendor based on their price. It's the equivalent to a patent on moving water--regardless of the mechanism. I can think of many novel, unique ways (in code) in which to perform the function described in this patent yet all of them would fall under the same umbrella of violation because, like I said, it is basically a patent on a generic process that could be preformed with a pencil and paper.
  - evanpw 11y ago
    Patents of processes are actually explicitly allowed: 35 U.S.C. 101: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful _process_, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101

thaumasiotes 11y ago

I also have the urge to laugh and toss the patent in the trash, but I don't think your example helps the case, and it might hurt. Replacing 'network carrier' with 'fishmonger' and 'network' with 'fish' works fine, but... If I say "I've created a machine that can do something humans used to have to do themselves"... is it really obvious that, based on that description alone, I should be ineligible for a patent? Substituting a new process that uses a device for an old process that uses a person is significant. You can't swap between the concepts without triggering an entirely different context.

falcolas 11y ago
> Substituting a new process that uses a device for an old process that uses a person The thing is, processes are not patentable. The problem lies in the fact that there's a loophole which allows processes to be patented if they include the phrase "implemented on a machine". This loophole is the problem, since it makes something previously unpatentable (such as mathematics, business logic) patentable.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  OK, look. Carrying water up a hill in buckets is a process for raising the water. Using an Archimedes screw is also a process for raising the water. Yet the Archimedes screw is (conceptually) patentable. Feel free to rephrase my earlier comment to say "A machine that does what used to require a person is significant". In fact, I'm pretty sure I used that phrasing myself just one sentence earlier -- compare "a machine that can do something humans used to have to do themselves". There's no reason a machine that can negotiate for you shouldn't be patentable, any more than a machine that can wash your clothes for you shouldn't be patentable. The problem here is that it's a stupid-obvious idea.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    But here we have patented the whole concept of lifting water uphill. I don't need this patent to reproduce the functionality of their system. Ergo it is not patentable.
  - riskable 11y ago
    Ah but there's a big difference: The Archimedes screw is a novel device with a unique design that's significantly different from other solutions for performing the same task (moving water up a hill). The Google patent here describes the mere process of picking a vendor based on their price. It's the equivalent to a patent on moving water--regardless of the mechanism. I can think of many novel, unique ways (in code) in which to perform the function described in this patent yet all of them would fall under the same umbrella of violation because, like I said, it is basically a patent on a generic process that could be preformed with a pencil and paper.
- evanpw 11y ago
  Patents of processes are actually explicitly allowed: 35 U.S.C. 101: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful _process_, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/101