Microsoft Seeks Patent On Brain-Based Development

theodp writes "With its just-published patent application for Developing Software Components Based on Brain Lateralization, Microsoft provides yet another example of just how broken the patent system is. Microsoft argues that its 'invention' of having a Program Manager act as an arbitrator/communicator between a group of right-brained software users and left-brained software developers mimics 'the way that the brain communicates between its two distinct hemispheres.' One of the 'inventors' is Ray Ozzie's Technical Strategist. If granted, the patent could be used to exclude others from making, using, or selling the 'invention' for 17 years."

Comments

Re:You say that as if it's a bad thing

[NoobixCube]

Won't be the only one out there, since software patents are only enforceable in a few countries. Someone in Europe will distribute a decent implementation of it.

Re:it's ok they are all going on the B-Ark

[simcop2387]

you misunderstood, as sad as it is, we're all descendants of the people from the B-Ark, we don't get to send one out

File + 20 vs. grant + 17

[tepples]

The poster doesn't even know how long patents last A patent is renewable up to a total of twenty years after the day it was filed. The commonly quoted figure of 17 years after issue used to be law, but it is still reasonable because because it takes close to three years for a patent application to get through the patent office.

Re:Bwa?

[Tubal-Cain]

They patented managers.

Unfortunately you can patent business processes

[MichaelCrawford]

That's somewhat recent. And just plain wrong, but there it is.

I think that can be done only in the US. Are there other countries that allow business process patents?

finally, a REAL reason to bash microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a casual interest in what's inside my own head, I've done a little light reading about the left/right brain issue, i.e. lateralization of brain function. Even that small amount of light reading has taught me that the notion of there being "left brained" or "right brained" people is the result of no-brained journalists (redundant?) mischaracterizing the results of early functional brain-mapping research. Wikipedia says it well (emphasis mine):

Popular psychology tends to make broad and sometimes pseudoscientific generalizations about certain functions (e.g. logic, creativity) being lateral, that is, located in either the right or the left side of the brain. Researchers often criticize popular psychology for this, because the popular lateralizations often are distributed across both hemispheres, [1] although mental processing is divided between them. ... Hines (1987) states that the research on brain lateralization is valid as a research program, though commercial promoters have applied it to promote subjects and products far out of the implications of the research. For example, the implications of the research have no bearing on psychological interventions such as EMDR and neurolinguistic programming (Drenth 2003:53), brain training equipment, or management training. One explanation for why research on lateralization is so prone to exaggeration and false application is that the left-right brain dichotomy is an easy-to-understand notion, which can be oversimplified and misused for promotion in the guise of science.[9] The research on lateralization of brain functioning is ongoing, and its implications are always tightly delineated, whereas the pseudoscientific applications are exaggerated, and applied to an extremely wide range of situations.

A little more reading will also tell you that functional lateralization is far from exact; for example, while right-handers typically have speech centers located in the left hemisphere, lefties are more likely to have speech control divided between both hemispheres. Are there statistical tendencies in function lateralization? In so far as there are tendencies in function localization, yes. Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with saying that people have certain information-processing preferences. (Oh, and by the way, it's usually much easier to just ask people what their preferences are, rather than using one of those lame MBTI tests. Self-reported preferences don't automatically become "scientific" by assigning them alphanumerical codes.) However, the ideas that you can (1) infer properties of someone's neurological structure based on their job title, and (2) use said properties to devise an optimal communications strategy, are 100% grade-A #1 hogwash. The media's gross unwillingness (or, more likely, inability) to interpret basic research leads to all kinds of farces like this. (For example - the next time someone refers to that old chestnut about how we use only 10% of our brains, consider what the result of using 100% of your brain would be: a skull-fucking seizure. Med students, back me up! Or tell me off; I just want to know...)

(begin microrant) But the worst exploiters of this pseudo-scientific garbage are educational consultants - you know, the ones who neurotic mothers pay (either directly, at clinics, or indirectly, through shitty-book sales) to have their children diagnosed as misunderstood geniuses. "Oh, my little Johnny! Sure, he gets Cs and Ds in every subject in school, but that's just because he's a special learner! He's a right-brained, visual-spatial prodigy with mild autism and extra cheese, just like Einstein! The teachers just don't know how to deal with him!" Here's a hint, folks: the more stringent the conditions under which someone's genius is supposed to manifest itself, the more likely that said genius is nothing more than neurotic maternal rationaliz