Looks like SCO has managed to create enough of a fuss to get things like this looked at. IMO software patents are the devil and here is one result of them.
Lets consider tabbed browsing, and 169 degre opening doors on these new Nissan Titans.
My company spends millions building this door, the hinge is a peice of work requireing many hours of effort and testing. We pantent it all of course and are awarded it and people buy our trucks for it's superior way of opening vs say a ford with the same feature.
No. Issuing patents on software is fundamentally broken. Software is not an invention. Computers cannot implement inventions. The only thing a computer can implement is calculations. Calculations, math, are not inventions.
The US screwed up and went against globally accepted patent stanards and reversed it's on accepted patent standards when it began issuing software patents.
Specifically the US abandoned the "Mental Steps Doctrine". The Mental Steps Doctrine said that mental processes are not - cannot be - inventions. And that anything that can be done mentally is not - cannot be - an invention.
It may be slow, but absolutely any code can be executed mentally. I am a programmer, executing code mentally is a routine part of writing and debugging code. All software is fundamentally mental steps - mental processes.
Physical objects and physical processes can be inventions. Mental processes and calculations are not inventions.
Answer me this: If I choose some convient/simple software patent, and I then proceed to in fact execute that software through pure thought, have I committed patent violation? Were my thoughts a violation of the law?
And if not, then please explain how it magically become an invention and a violation when I take the obvious and non-novel step of using an ordinary computer merely to speed up that exact same non-invention calculation?
I really really want you to answer that. It's funny, every time I ask that of a software patent advocate they completely ignore the question. They can't rationaly answer it, so they pretend the question was never asked. So I will state right now that if you reply in support of software patents, yet completely ignore the previous two paragraphs, I will just repeat the question. Can thoughts executing the software violate the law? And if not then how does the obvious use of a computer merely to speed things up turn a non-invention into an invention?
Finally something that makes sense. This is the best argument against Software Patents that I have seen. Now, will someone forward it to the FSF (gnu.org)?
I asked a similar question in regard to patents on algorithms in my Numerical Anal II class. If I use a patented wavelet algorithm to calculate a value on a chalkboard, have I violated the patent? What if I don't need the chalkboard? The answer seemed to be that either would be a patent violation. So be careful how you think. If you use logic and arrive at a valid answer don't let anyone know until you've pattern searched the structure of your logic. It might be patented.
The US constitution, legislation, and Supreme Court are all consistent with what you said. It's the USPTO and certail lower courts that have allowed software patents, contradicting higher precedent.
Unfortunately you are mistaken about the US Supreme Court. They screwed the pooch in a 1980's case, Diamond v. Deihr. The US Supreme Court compelled the patent office to issue a software patent. Specificly it amounted to a patent on a method to calculate number (time). It was patented in connection to manufacturing rubber, but it was the absolutely routine rubber manufacturing process. It was just a better calculation for how long to bake the rubber. It was a 5-4 decision. The 4-judge dissent railing agains
No, the majority found novelty in the continuous measuring of temperature without needing to open/close the door, and in the system as a whole. Sorry the opinion is so hard to read, but try my abridged version [brlewis.com].
Are you the same person I discussed this with before? Because a while ago someone else made the exact same bizzare claim about "removing the need to open/close the door". Doubly odd because he also reffered to the press as "the door".
I say "bizzare claim" because the patent has nothing to do with opening/closing the press. There is absolutely no change in the physical process, and neither the original ruling (which I've read before) nor your abridged version indicates any.
I don't know if I was the one you conversed with on this before. I hope not, because I would hate to leave your question unanswered.
It may in fact be a bizzarre thing to say (using "claim" here confuses things), but it's how the majority opinion characterized the claims of the patent. It's the second paragraph in my abridged version:
Respondents characterize their contribution to the art to reside in the process of constantly measuring the actual temperature inside the mold. According to the responden
This got a bit long, chuckle, but be sure you don't miss the last two paragraphs. I almost moved them to the top, but they will seem odd if the patent isn't cleared up first.
bizzarre
I didn't mean to sound too harsh. It was just quite striking the combination of open/close (which doesn't appear in what they wrote) joined to the notable use of "door" to reffer to opening the press (not bad, just memorable).
it's how the majority opinion characterized the claims of the patent
In order for the dissent to reach its conclusion it is necessary for it to read out of respondents' patent application all the steps in the claimed process which it determined were not novel or "inventive."
The majority is only saying that the dissent determined certain parts were not novel. The majority itself seems to assume that issues of novelty and obviousness remain open on remand. See the last paragraph in my abridged version, Majority section III.
The majority argument was that a patent could not be rejected simply because it lacked novelty and non-obviousness in the patentable subject matter. That's what the whole "considered as a whole" thing is about. If the software has novelty and non-obviousness, then "considered as a whole" it contains novelty and non-obviousness.
If they believed there was any novelty and non-obviousness in any other portion of the patent then they never would have wasted any time on the "considered as a whole" thing. It woul
If the software has novelty and non-obviousness, then "considered as a whole" it contains novelty and non-obviousness.
No, "considered as a whole" can only mean novelty and non-obviousness in the way constituent parts are combined. Your interpretation "would allow a competent draftsman to evade the recognized limitations on the type of subject matter eligible for patent protection." The majority opinion was very specific about avoiding this, and went into excruciating detail that they weren't changing an
None of these patents for "a storage medium containing software..." are validated by Diamond v. Diehr.
I certainly agree the majority did not intend to allow such a result, and they certainly spent considerable breath on results they did not intend to produce.
None-the-less, just yesterday I happened to stumble accross exactly such a claim within an issued patent. Hell of a coincidence. I don't recall the exact wording, but claim number 10 was "the software described in claim 1 stored on media". I know thi
Do you find anywhere that the majority said the equation was non-obvious? I read in section III, "Their process admittedly employs a well-known mathematical equation."
Do you find anywhere that the majority said the equation was non-obvious?
That's an odd reply, because that post did not say the majority said the equation was non-obvious. My second paragraph said they said the combination was non-obvious, and later I pretty much said ok, if they are maintaining old rulings then they are effectively saying all equations are obvious.
So I said ok, if they are saying the combination is non-obvious then they are wrong. Once you've stated the equation then it's blatantly obvi
If I choose some convient/simple software patent, and I then proceed to in fact execute that software through pure thought, have I committed patent violation? Were my thoughts a violation of the law?
No -- and therein lies the crux of the argument. Go to any software patent and look at the claims. You'll see they all refer to "method and system for"...
This is the key point: You can't patent an algorithm. You can only patent a device. So, for instance, running through RSA on the blackboard
Wow! You did better then everyoneone else who ignored my question in the past! You only ignored the second half of my question! LOL I specifically said "And if not...".
--------------- And if not, then please explain how it magically become an invention and a violation when I take the obvious and non-novel step of using an ordinary computer merely to speed up that exact same non-invention calculation? ---------------
So, for instance, running through RSA on the blackboard was never violating their patent;
Bad for EU based companies that sell software on a global scale that this is not enough. They still need to be compliant with the US patent laws, as soon as their software can be sold/is installed in the US.
Correction: Bad for the US when when they are unable to legally use vast quantities of software. The EU will stomp us into the ground when all your industries can use all sorts of better, cheaper, more functional and more productive software forbidden in the US. There was panic and huge expense dealing
Possible correction on prior art: The rules on prior art may be more complex than I realized. In at least some cases proof of "first to invent" is enough, but international cases may require publication. Quite odd, I could have sworn the international patent treaties required equal treatment between foriegn and domestic inventors. I dunno.
We are quickly coming up on an era (some would say that we're already there) where *everything* can be done with general purpose actuators and general purpose computers.
There are damn few inventions you can make that can't be implemented at least partly in software.
Where does that leave us? Either a) nothing can be effectively protected by a patent, because someone merely needs to implement a portion of it in software to get around the patent, or b) processe
I can already see you responding "just write software to actuate X", but that leaves the question: where does the X come from? The argument against software patents is just that--the "write software to actuate X" is easy and obvious, and therefore shouldn't be patentable. It's the X itself that should get the patent.
That's exactly the point, though. If using software to do X isn't patentable, that means, conversely, that a patent can't protect against a product that uses software to do X.
then someone could come in and replace those physical linkages with switches, add a tiny microprocessor that activates the unlocking mechanism and undercut the original inventor, thus rendering his patent useless.
Ummm, if I replace those physical linkages with acorns an add a tiny trained chipmonk that activates the unlocking mechanism, then yeah, his patent is useless against me. LOL.
You can't evade a patent with obvious and trivial dodges, but patents do NOT prohibit you from tossing out the entire sys
That's exactly the point, though. If using software to do X isn't patentable, that means, conversely, that a patent can't protect against a product that uses software to do X.
That's not what I'm saying, or at least not what I was trying to say. If X is patented, then it's patented regardless of whether it's implemented mechanically or in software. Using the Simplex lock example, if the patent is for "a device which prevents a door from being opened unless the correct sequence of buttons on a 5-button p
It seems your argument is the single claim that rejecting software patents somehow kills all patents.
Well, the original US software patent was in the case Dimaond v. Diehr. They patented the normal rubber manufacturing process + a better equation to calculate how long to cook the rubber. Manufactuing rubber is a perfectly patentable physical process, and was patented years ago. I'm sure that original manufacturing patent expired long ago, but aside from that it would remain a perfectly valid and perfectly
How Software Patents Should Work. (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets consider tabbed browsing, and 169 degre opening doors on these new Nissan Titans.
My company spends millions building this door, the hinge is a peice of work requireing many hours of effort and testing. We pantent it all of course and are awarded it and people buy our trucks for it's superior way of opening vs say a ford with the same feature.
Tab
Re:How Software Patents Should Work. (Score:5, Insightful)
The US screwed up and went against globally accepted patent stanards and reversed it's on accepted patent standards when it began issuing software patents.
Specifically the US abandoned the "Mental Steps Doctrine". The Mental Steps Doctrine said that mental processes are not - cannot be - inventions. And that anything that can be done mentally is not - cannot be - an invention.
It may be slow, but absolutely any code can be executed mentally. I am a programmer, executing code mentally is a routine part of writing and debugging code. All software is fundamentally mental steps - mental processes.
Physical objects and physical processes can be inventions. Mental processes and calculations are not inventions.
Answer me this:
If I choose some convient/simple software patent, and I then proceed to in fact execute that software through pure thought, have I committed patent violation? Were my thoughts a violation of the law?
And if not, then please explain how it magically become an invention and a violation when I take the obvious and non-novel step of using an ordinary computer merely to speed up that exact same non-invention calculation?
I really really want you to answer that. It's funny, every time I ask that of a software patent advocate they completely ignore the question. They can't rationaly answer it, so they pretend the question was never asked. So I will state right now that if you reply in support of software patents, yet completely ignore the previous two paragraphs, I will just repeat the question. Can thoughts executing the software violate the law? And if not then how does the obvious use of a computer merely to speed things up turn a non-invention into an invention?
-
Parent
Re:How Software Patents Should Work. (Score:1)
This is the best argument against Software Patents that I have seen.
Now, will someone forward it to the FSF (gnu.org)?
Re:How Software Patents Should Work. (Score:2)
So be careful how you think. If you use logic and arrive at a valid answer don't let anyone know until you've pattern searched the structure of your logic. It might be patented.
In defense of the US (Score:2)
Re:In defense of the US (Score:2)
Re:In defense of the US (Score:2)
Re:In defense of the US (Score:2)
I say "bizzare claim" because the patent has nothing to do with opening/closing the press. There is absolutely no change in the physical process, and neither the original ruling (which I've read before) nor your abridged version indicates any.
They insert the rubber, close the
Claims of the Diehr and Lutton patent (Score:2)
I don't know if I was the one you conversed with on this before. I hope not, because I would hate to leave your question unanswered.
It may in fact be a bizzarre thing to say (using "claim" here confuses things), but it's how the majority opinion characterized the claims of the patent. It's the second paragraph in my abridged version:
Re:Claims of the Diehr and Lutton patent (Score:2)
bizzarre
I didn't mean to sound too harsh. It was just quite striking the combination of open/close (which doesn't appear in what they wrote) joined to the notable use of "door" to reffer to opening the press (not bad, just memorable).
it's how the majority opinion characterized the claims of the patent
(1) Check the wording - you
Re:Claims of the Diehr and Lutton patent (Score:2)
The majority is only saying that the dissent determined certain parts were not novel. The majority itself seems to assume that issues of novelty and obviousness remain open on remand. See the last paragraph in my abridged version, Majority section III.
Re:Claims of the Diehr and Lutton patent (Score:2)
If they believed there was any novelty and non-obviousness in any other portion of the patent then they never would have wasted any time on the "considered as a whole" thing. It woul
Re:Claims of the Diehr and Lutton patent (Score:2)
No, "considered as a whole" can only mean novelty and non-obviousness in the way constituent parts are combined. Your interpretation "would allow a competent draftsman to evade the recognized limitations on the type of subject matter eligible for patent protection." The majority opinion was very specific about avoiding this, and went into excruciating detail that they weren't changing an
Re:Claims of the Diehr and Lutton patent (Score:2)
I certainly agree the majority did not intend to allow such a result, and they certainly spent considerable breath on results they did not intend to produce.
None-the-less, just yesterday I happened to stumble accross exactly such a claim within an issued patent. Hell of a coincidence. I don't recall the exact wording, but claim number 10 was "the software described in claim 1 stored on media". I know thi
Re:Claims of the Diehr and Lutton patent (Score:2)
Re:Claims of the Diehr and Lutton patent (Score:2)
That's an odd reply, because that post did not say the majority said the equation was non-obvious. My second paragraph said they said the combination was non-obvious, and later I pretty much said ok, if they are maintaining old rulings then they are effectively saying all equations are obvious.
So I said ok, if they are saying the combination is non-obvious then they are wrong. Once you've stated the equation then it's blatantly obvi
Re:How Software Patents Should Work. (Score:2)
No -- and therein lies the crux of the argument. Go to any software patent and look at the claims. You'll see they all refer to "method and system for"...
This is the key point: You can't patent an algorithm. You can only patent a device. So, for instance, running through RSA on the blackboard
Re:How Software Patents Should Work. (Score:2)
---------------
And if not, then please explain how it magically become an invention and a violation when I take the obvious and non-novel step of using an ordinary computer merely to speed up that exact same non-invention calculation?
---------------
So, for instance, running through RSA on the blackboard was never violating their patent;
Re:How Software Patents Should Work. (Score:1)
Absolutely true: Methods are mathematics and therefore not patentable. So far the theory.
Unfortunately, the EPO and the USPO allow to patent methods in combination of an apparatus, which is nothing else than a computer.
Good for EU based companies that those patents are currently not enforcable. Bad for them that they will be, if the proposed law materializes.
Bad for EU based companies that sell software on a global scale that this is not enough. They still need to be compliant with the US paten
Re:How Software Patents Should Work. (Score:2)
Correction:
Bad for the US when when they are unable to legally use vast quantities of software. The EU will stomp us into the ground when all your industries can use all sorts of better, cheaper, more functional and more productive software forbidden in the US. There was panic and huge expense dealing
Re:How Software Patents Should Work. (Score:2)
The rules on prior art may be more complex than I realized. In at least some cases proof of "first to invent" is enough, but international cases may require publication. Quite odd, I could have sworn the international patent treaties required equal treatment between foriegn and domestic inventors. I dunno.
-
Re:How Software Patents Should Work. (Score:2)
We are quickly coming up on an era (some would say that we're already there) where *everything* can be done with general purpose actuators and general purpose computers.
There are damn few inventions you can make that can't be implemented at least partly in software.
Where does that leave us? Either a) nothing can be effectively protected by a patent, because someone merely needs to implement a portion of it in software to get around the patent, or b) processe
Re:How Software Patents Should Work. (Score:2)
The problem with this is that it's bullshit.
Careful with that flamethrower . . .
There are damn few inventions you can make that can't be implemented at least partly in software.
This is a fascinating idea you propose. Perhaps you could enlighten me on how one would perform the following in software:
I can already see you responding "just write software to actuate X", but that leaves the que
Re:How Software Patents Should Work. (Score:2)
That's exactly the point, though. If using software to do X isn't patentable, that means, conversely, that a patent can't protect against a product that uses software to do X.
Using your door
Re:How Software Patents Should Work. (Score:2)
Ummm, if I replace those physical linkages with acorns an add a tiny trained chipmonk that activates the unlocking mechanism, then yeah, his patent is useless against me. LOL.
You can't evade a patent with obvious and trivial dodges, but patents do NOT prohibit you from tossing out the entire sys
Re:How Software Patents Should Work. (Score:2)
That's exactly the point, though. If using software to do X isn't patentable, that means, conversely, that a patent can't protect against a product that uses software to do X.
That's not what I'm saying, or at least not what I was trying to say. If X is patented, then it's patented regardless of whether it's implemented mechanically or in software. Using the Simplex lock example, if the patent is for "a device which prevents a door from being opened unless the correct sequence of buttons on a 5-button p
Re:How Software Patents Should Work. (Score:2)
Well, the original US software patent was in the case Dimaond v. Diehr. They patented the normal rubber manufacturing process + a better equation to calculate how long to cook the rubber. Manufactuing rubber is a perfectly patentable physical process, and was patented years ago. I'm sure that original manufacturing patent expired long ago, but aside from that it would remain a perfectly valid and perfectly