Slashdot Mirror

Then, the examiner invites 5 people skilled in the art that are unaffiliated to the patent seeker. They are confronted with the problem description and come up with a solution to tackle that particular problem. If some of the five come up with something substantially similar to the invention that the patent is sought for, the patent doesn't get granted due to obviousness. Even if the engineers don't come up with the actual answer but with alternative solutions there will be a win, as a legal circumvention of the patent will be on record.

Such a system would have killed Bezos' original patent right of. Problem: "I want to be able to allow my customers to buy things with a single click". The patented solution would have been proposed by 5 out of 5 people skilled in the art. Similar questions as "I want to be able to stream live video to a computer", "I want to show a picture of the product I'm selling " will be shot down.

One of the big dangers of software patents currently is locking out entire problem domains, by patenting the questions, not the answers. If the question contains the answer, it should not be patentable.

Note that with this scheme the question "How does one exercise a cat" would most likely allow for this patent.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4135240.html

Inventors: Ritchie; Dennis M. (Summit, NJ)
Abstract: An improved arrangement for controlling access to data files by computer users. Access permission bits are used in the prior art to separately indicate permissions for the file owner and nonowners to read, write and execute the file contents. An additional access control bit is added to each executable file. When this bit is set to one, the identification of the current user is changed to that of the owner of the executable file. The program in the executable file then has access to all data files owned by the same owner. This change is temporary, the proper identification being restored when the program is terminated.
Assignee: Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated (Murray Hill, NJ)
Application Number: 377591
Filing Date: July 9, 1973
Publication Date: January 16, 1979

The award for creating a sentence with the most obsessive use of IP goes to: M$! ...for an entry in their insidious attempt at trying to patent the internet. As quoted: "assigning an IP address from the IP address server to the host when an IP address server is available over the IP network; and immediately discontinuing use of the generated IP address when an assigned IP address is received from an IP address server available over the network." Oh man... I hope that this isn't copyrighted because I could get sued!

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4577333.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4715045.html

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4577333.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4715045.html

Can't have the cat eating and not exercising, that wouldn't be too healthy.

Too bad using a laser to exercise a cat is patented. :)

You are 100% wrong. You would do well to heed your .sig, in terms of talking "through your hat".

Well, thank you for recognizing that there are valid arguments why not all algorithm patents are harmful. And yes, it is core to my opinions on this, but I have other core points that I think are strong arguments.

"You make the assumption that allowing patents in any algorithm means all "general software ideas" are patentable."

Yes, because that is the way it has happened in the U.S. and it is the reason there are > 30,000 such patents

Right, but we seem to disagree on what the root problem and solution are. The cause for the >30,000 "bad" software patents isn't because algorithms are patentable, it's because the criteria for allowing them has either been insufficiently applied (e.g., prior art, obviousness) or insufficiently defined. My solution is to fix the criteria and process by which the patents are approved. Your solution (and you are certainly not alone) is to ditch the entire concept of patenting algorithms. As I hope I've pointed out, that's throwing out the good with the bad and there are better alternatives.

The gist of your arguments seem to be based on the quotes below:

...you and I consider them obvious and unpatentable but others, especially patent examiners, may not.

What is concerning is that in all these areas, fundamental algorithms and methods are being patented - the consequent algorithmic expressions of elementary results in particular fields. To me that is entirely unacceptable.

What I may consider to be purely mathematical, non-novel, overly broad or obvious and therefore unpatentable seems never to have stopped the average patent examiner from granting it a patent.

But again, that's a problem with the process of awarding patents, not with the concept of patenting algorithms. The exact same thing is true with any form of patent. My favorite example is "Method of exercising a cat" (playing with a cat using a laser pointer). How a patent agent missed the obviousness I'll never know. The complaint you make about "general software" and "obvious" patents for algorithms applies to general patents. It isn't specific to algorithms. Getting rid of algorithm patents will not get rid of the problem in general. It's basically saying the system is broken so lets get rid of the system as it pertains to my field, but leave everyone else screwed with a still broken system. (And in the process screw over some people in my field who have "legitimately" patentable algorithms.) I think it's a lousy and inappropriate solution.

As for patenting fundamental mathematical "truths", that is analagous to patenting physical laws. They are "discoveries" not inventions. Yes, for the layperson the difference can be difficult to see, but that's true whether it's math or physics. For example, many people (including me) object to the idea of patenting genes. Again, this is an issue with respect to the criteria for awarding patents, not the whole filed (e.g., algorithms).

"Please explain to me how a patent on a very specify object recognition algorithm is harmful to software development or innovation. Keep in mind that your argument can't apply to other types of patents (mechanical, electronic, etc.)"

The condition of your second sentence is easy to meet: As I have said before, no-one I know of has any problem with the patenting of a physical device that implements some algorithm, even if that is all that it does. The problem is with your insistence that the algorithm itself should be patentable, thereby rendering it's implementation in a general purpose computer subject to legal sanction by the patentee.

There are several problems with this argument; you state t