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

[moderatorrater]

Usually it's not the concept of Microsoft's software that's all that bad, it's the specific implementation. This makes sure that their implementation is always the only one out there.

Also, patenting something based on the brain is ridiculous. Might as well patent "bi pedal motion", sue everyone in the world and get it over with.

Ugh

[Foobar of Borg]

1) This is only an application. Any dumbass can file an application so long as he pays the fees.
2) The poster doesn't even know how long patents last, let alone anything relating to what is *actually* wrong with the patent system.
Just my two eurocents (since they hold their value better).

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is what seems to be the big rubber stamp at the other end of the patent application. And, I strongly suspect any actual attempt to remove that rubber stamp would succeed in only getting it's utility removed from the small fry, and a few minor examples for the press releases. The fat cats will still have it. And, we will still have this problem.

Re:The patent office - retarding development?

[ScrewMaster]

Only in America.

Not hardly. The madness is spreading.

Wait a second...

[catdevnull]

I thought the idea of the patent was to protect an invention--the method or design of the apparatus--not an idea. Ideas aren't worth jack; it's the invention that makes the idea come to reality that is the patentable item.

This is just, excuse the expression, patently absurd.

Re:Testing the limits?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is novel, non-obvious Sphere packing is well studied. In fact, your particular method is colloquially known as orange packing, after a different fruit.

Re:The patent office - retarding development?

[Shai-kun]

First of all we should get rid of software patents. They are ridiculous, like patents on math.

I'm patenting the deliberate creation of shyte s/w

[presidenteloco]

Business Process and Method:

By creating bolloxed, over-complex software applications, interfaces, frameworks, and modules, the "wrong-minded" "development organization" thus enables an entire business
eco-system engaged in the production of "for dummies" manuals, malware detection and security services, and IT support, which is needed to arbitrate between the shyte software, and the "right-brained" users.

Re:On the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Microsoft only a victim?
Haven't they implied on more than one occasion that Linux is violating X patents?

That sure doesn't sound like a victim...

Re:The patent office - retarding development?

[Splab]

No!

Patents on non obvious algorithms and Math are very valid and do give a great deal of advantage (plus it keeps a line of jobs for the true geeks). Patents on simple concepts however should be forbidden (not just for software)

Re:The patent office - retarding development?

[Anonymous Coward]

*Ahem.*

"True geeks" are interested in ideas for their own sake; money---although a certain amount is necessary for survival, and a bit more is desirable for comfort & security---is a secondary concern. And it's obvious you know absolutely nothing about mathematical culture if you would seriously consider the notion of patenting a theory or its proof; mathematicians, perhaps more than anyone else, understand the wisdom of Ben Franklin's words: "As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously."

+3 Insightful? WTF?

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

[PopeRatzo]

But if it "mimics the way the brain works" isn't that evidence of prior art?

I don't understand the world.

Re:The patent office - retarding development?

[Inoen]

Unlike copyright, patents don't exist in order to protect inventors. They exist to encourage inventors to publish their inventions rather than keep them as trade secrets.
A book (which is what the first copyright systems covered) is not very useful for the author unless it is published.
Inventions on the other hand can (in many cases) be useful even if kept secret. This is why patents were invented - and why publishing is part of the patenting process.

Re:The patent office - retarding development?

[ultranova]

Patents on non obvious algorithms and Math are very valid and do give a great deal of advantage (plus it keeps a line of jobs for the true geeks).

Every mathemathical truth is obvious, since it follows from the postulates. And every algorithm is obvious in hindsight.

Patents on simple concepts however should be forbidden (not just for software)

Simple to whom ? The patent examiner, who gets to read the obfuscated patent claim ?

Re:The patent office - retarding development?

[monkeythug]

So, just to be clear, you agree that, for example, the inventor of the Quicksort algorithm should have patented it? What about the inventor of the Binary chop search algorithm? Or how about line drawing algorithms such as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bresenham's_line_algorithm

All of these algorithms were arguably non-obvious at the time.

Re:The patent office - retarding development?

[PopeRatzo]

Patents are needed if programmers want to keep their jobs and prevent competitors from stealing their ideas and future income.

This is the big lie.

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

[MyDixieWrecked]

This makes sure that their implementation is always the only one out there.

This is exactly how the patent system is broken. Patents on physical inventions leave room for competitors to invent their own version of the item, although the new inventor must create their own implementation that is sufficiently different. Patents on ideas and many business processes, especially this patent, are ridiculous. How can you patent a way of coming up with what software to right?

And how exactly is this different from SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) in the software world? I mean, you have one system that processes some set of data and then, after making it into a new pre-defined data structure (e.g. XML), it pushes it into another system which performs some other method of processing on it and then can return the results into a final service that takes that data and persists the information in a database.

The arbitrator/communicator element is essentially the primary orchestration element in SOA. The object/component driven element is essentially the portion that passes datastructures (XML) between systems. The situation/scenario driven element is just like the SOA as a whole when using choreography over orchestration.

Also, as other people have mentioned in other posts, it does feel like this is a patent on having levels of management. This is especially like the feel of a Graphics/PrePress shop where the salespeople interact with the clients, pass on job tickets to the manager of the prepress department who then checks over the tickets and distributes work to the worker bees.

Re:The patent office - retarding development?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe, and most of the other well-known software companies became successful long before software patents were widespread. The appropriate way to protect software is through copyright, not patent. (As for "business method" patents like the one this story is about, they're not an appropriate subject for any kind of IP protection at all.) The major argument in favor of proprietary software has always been that the profit motive inspires developers to work harder and create better software than those who do it for free. If this is true, then it is the obligation of proprietary software companies to make products that live up to this idea.

companies go and spend lots of money to research and develop something, then the open source community goes and takes the best of it, re-codes and gives it away for free

You seem to think this is a trivial process. Trust me, it's not.

Re:How telling, and how sad

[Zarf]

It's offtopic, but I actually agree fully... I'd love to see Slashdot's moderation system go to much higher numbers, and a few more mod points (but not too many more) be given out. e.g. Go to 15 instead of 5 as a maximum, and give out roughly twice as many mod points as currently. That way, each individual act of moderation has about 1/3 the value that it used to, but more people are given a "voice" in valuing posts.

It would also allow for finer grained modifiers - I currently have Friends and Fans at +1, but under the system I propose here, I'd put fans at +1 and friends at +3.

How about additional dimensions? +5 funny, +3 insightful, +7 interesting, -1 off topic, 0 overrated, -3 troll

The result could be plotted on a 3D graph attached to each comment.

Re:The patent office - retarding development?

[Anonymous Coward]

The moderators have brought a return to sanity, I see. Really, you had it coming: by definition a geek is someone who values technical knowledge above more mundane things. And money, aside from the aforementioned survival & creature comforts (under which your mortgage and progeny fall), is a very mundane thing compared to knowledge. Do I sound like an idealist? Good. You'll find that most true believers in science are like me. No one's talking about "living of the land" (sic); we're talking about the rock-hard fact that the heart of the scientific enterprise is a free & unfettered exchange of ideas. By all means, use your skills to pay your bills. But don't confuse economic concerns with academic ones.

If you don't care what Ben Franklin thought, despite the fact that he was Invention Personified, perhaps a more modern inventor's opinion would show you the light. I quote Donald Knuth, greatest living computer scientist:

"I strongly believe that the recent trend in patenting algorithms is of benefit only to a very small number of attorneys and inventors, while it is seriously harmful to the vast majority of people who want to do useful things with computers ... When I think of the computer programs I require daily to get my own work done, I cannot help but realize that none of them would exist today if software patents had been prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s. Changing the rules now will have the effect of freezing progress at essentially its current level."

Or, since your ignorance of mathematics leads me to believe that you won't value Prof. Knuth's opinion, perhaps these words from Doom/Quake uber-hacker John Carmack will be more convincing:

"In the majority of cases in software, patents [affect] independent invention. Get a dozen sharp programmers together, give them all a hard problem to work on, and a bunch of them will come up with solutions that would probably be patentable, and be similar enough that the first programmer to file the patent could sue the others for patent infringement. Why should society reward that? ... The programmer that filed the patent didn't work any harder because a patent might be available, solving the problem was his job and he had to do it anyway. ... Yes, it is a legal tool that may help you against your competitors, but I'll have no part of it. It's basically mugging someone."

Do you notice a trend? It seems to me that the only pro-patent people, other than lawyers, are those so small that they'd scramble to accrue continual profit from the mere one or two things they'll accomplish in a lifetime (other than buying a house and breeding). Much easier to sit on your ass and collect royalities while simultaneously discouraging innovation, than to continue working for the benefit of the world those munchkins will inherit one day, eh?

Oh, we idealists! When will we get over our silly notions that life could be more than eating, shitting, fucking, dying, and collecting shiny coins?