Slashdot Mirror


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."

50 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. BOFH by AnotherBrian · · Score: 4, Funny

    So they just patented the concept of a manager. I really hope Microsoft enforces this one.

    1. Re:BOFH by l0cust · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey! Continue ffs! I have tissues ready and who cares about some microsoft patents anyway..

      --
      Politicians and Pedophiles: Two groups of exploitive bastards who are most dangerous when they're thinking of children.
  2. You say that as if it's a bad thing by JonTurner · · Score: 5, Funny

    If granted, the patent could be used to exclude others from making, using, or selling the 'invention' for 17 years
    Not sure I understand your point of view on this one. I consider any legal device that prohibits selling software like Microsoft's to be worthy of praise.
    1. Re:You say that as if it's a bad thing by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:You say that as if it's a bad thing by AsmCoder8088 · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...Might as well patent "bi pedal motion", sue everyone in the world and get it over with.

      Except that would only affect people with two legs, not everyone.

    3. Re:You say that as if it's a bad thing by arotenbe · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...Might as well patent "bi pedal motion", sue everyone in the world and get it over with. Except that would only affect people with two legs, not everyone. Yeah, people could avoid being sued by crawling around all day instead of walking.
      --
      Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
    4. Re:You say that as if it's a bad thing by NoobixCube · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    5. Re:You say that as if it's a bad thing by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      I don't understand the world.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:You say that as if it's a bad thing by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --



      ...spike
      Ewwwwww, coconut...
  3. The patent office - retarding development? by TRAyres · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Essentially what this does is retard the development of obvious software for 17 years.

    I wonder if I can get a patent on a 'for' loop and then declare all software that uses it to be violating my patent?

    Fucking ridiculous.

    Only in America.

    1. Re:The patent office - retarding development? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only in America.

      Not hardly. The madness is spreading.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:The patent office - retarding development? by iknowcss · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This is not a troll. Please realize that as you are reading my post.

      It is clear the system is broken, but of all the comments I've ever read on slashdot (as infrequently as that may be) what is the solution? I mean you can't just throw out the thing all together. Having no patenting system would make the whole market far too volatile. If you could start over and rebuild the whole thing, what would you do?

      My first thoughts where along the lines of something like:
      • Company 1 comes up with idea and puts a "patent hold" on it. No one else can find out about it.
      • Company 2 comes up with the same / similar idea and puts its own "patent hold" on it. Again, no one finds out.
      • Company 1 finishes its product and takes it to market. Company 2 is informed.
      • Companies 1 and 2 are given patents on the idea. No more companies may put a "hold" on the patent.
      • Company 1 and 2 battle it out, creating competition, but with some market stability.
      This way, no one company can sit on it. If they want to do something about what they've come up with, they can't just sit on it. They actually have to act on it, and to minimize their competition, they need to develop it as quickly as possible, effectively incentivising progress.
      --
      Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
    3. Re:The patent office - retarding development? by something_wicked_thi · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Cheap +5 Insightful: just say "All Americans suck because {insert generalization here}"

      All Americans suck because all generalizations are false.

    4. Re:The patent office - retarding development? by Shai-kun · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      ...or so I've been told.
    5. Re:The patent office - retarding development? by giafly · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The patent system only makes any sense for protecting inventions. The problem with IT patents - and I've read a lot - is that 99% of them are bleeding obvious. So there's no problem with others finding out about them. Unless, as in this case, the patent is pseudo-scientific twaddle, in which case who cares?

      If you're serious, how about replacing the current invention standard for new patents by a jury of software programmers who are presented with the problem and asked to design a solution. If any of them gets close to any "invention" in the would-be patent, it's "obvious" and fails.

      --
      Reduce, reuse, cycle
    6. Re:The patent office - retarding development? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *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?

    7. Re:The patent office - retarding development? by Inoen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:The patent office - retarding development? by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:The patent office - retarding development? by monkeythug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Don't you wish you hadn't wasted 3 seconds of your life reading this sig?
    10. Re:The patent office - retarding development? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re:The patent office - retarding development? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    12. Re:The patent office - retarding development? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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?
  4. Maybe... by MrKaos · · Score: 5, Funny

    The left brain doesn't know what the right brain is doing at Microsoft.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  5. prior art .... by taniwha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    it's called the videogame business ....

  6. How telling, and how sad by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 4, Funny

    How sad that Microsoft considers metric-driven software development that connects users and developers a new invention. :-(

    "At Microsoft, these two halves of the brain come together in the colon."

    1. Re:How telling, and how sad by YttriumOxide · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    2. Re:How telling, and how sad by Zarf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
      --
      [signature]
  7. Ugh by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  8. Wrong title by gmuslera · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft should seek patent on brain-damaged development. At least with that one they will have the monopoly on prior art.

  9. Testing the limits? by TheNucleon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read some of the patent application. It's the standard format, but the subject matter is remarkable. I can only think that Microsoft is testing what they can get away with at the USPTO.

    If I had the money, I would patent the placement of pineapple on pizza in adjacent hexagonal cells to reduce juice runoff. I would have diagrams. It is novel, non-obvious, and I doubt there is prior art. Then we'd see if the folks in the USPTO are even reading these things.

    As a (small) stockholder of MSFT, I have to wonder, don't they have better things to do?

    --
    My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
  10. Re:it's ok they are all going on the B-Ark by simcop2387 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  11. Real People by sugarmotor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find it remarkable that real people put their names to stuff like this.

    Anybody here know someone personally with a silly corporate patent like this one? Do they believe in their "work"?

    Stephan
    --
    http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
  12. File + 20 vs. grant + 17 by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  13. Microsoft Seeks Patent On Brain-Based Development by hidannik · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...which is a significant improvement over our established posterior-based development process.

  14. This must be patentable... by Genda · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think anyone who reads the article can plainly see that Microsoft has apparently invented a nearly perfect process for blowing their smoke up someones else's ass... I believe this makes them the proud inventors of the remote smoked ham... Bravo Gentlemen!

  15. Two degrees of separation... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny
    invention ... mimics 'the way that the brain communicates between its two distinct hemispheres'

    Microsoft can pry my Corpus Callosum from my cold, dead brain. I think either God can claim or Darwin can demonstrate some sort of prior art here. Just need to schedule a court appearance for one of them...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. Let them patent it, and enforce the patent by melted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The concept of program manager is the single most fucked up aspect of Microsoft culture, IMO. Basically, the assumption is that developers can not, on a fundamental level:

    1. Talk to each other directly
    2. Understand what the customer needs
    3. Deliver software on time

    Anyone with any brain at all sees immediately that all three assumptions are pure bovine excrement, but there's a large layer of well entrenched PM's at Microsoft, up to about 30% of each product team. 95% of these folks do absolutely nothing but (mis)communicate, hold meetings, "manage releases" (whatever the heck that means) and manage up. The remaining 5% are worth their weight in rare earth metals, but they're a tiny minority and they would be better used in a position of authority, like a Project Manager. Program manger has no reports and no authority over either development or test. Oftentimes they have no specialized education and no area expertise. They are randomly assigned to "areas" and told to "spec them out". Most of them even have to design UI, despite not having any usability or UI design experience (I'm sure that explains a lot). So they throw together a primitive spec, and the developer (who is typically an area expert) then spends a lot of time trying to politely explain how big a pile of flaming poo their spec is and why certain things need to be done differently to be even possible.

    The worst part is, PM role is typically considered something of a fast track to management. So you end up with a lot of people who have not a slightest idea what they're talking about making strategic decisions.

    So I say, let them have it. The rest of the world will just assume that their developers and testers have a brain. Seems to be a pretty safe assumption to make, most of the time.

  18. Wait a second... by catdevnull · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  19. Re:Bwa? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Informative

    They patented managers.

  20. A idea by ozonearchitect · · Score: 3, Funny

    They need to patent their OS releases... it mimics the way a human being takes a dump.

  21. I'm patenting the deliberate creation of shyte s/w by presidenteloco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  22. Unfortunately you can patent business processes by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 2, Informative
    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?

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  23. It's even funnier by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read some of the patent application. It's the standard format, but the subject matter is remarkable. I can only think that Microsoft is testing what they can get away with at the USPTO.

    If I had the money, I would patent the placement of pineapple on pizza in adjacent hexagonal cells to reduce juice runoff. I would have diagrams. It is novel, non-obvious, and I doubt there is prior art. Then we'd see if the folks in the USPTO are even reading these things.


    You seem to assume that if they read it, they'd send you your pizza patent back and tell you to go fly a kite. That's actually incorrect. You'd probably just get the patent anyway. Heck, you could even patent the looks of a pizza.

    A patent attorney actually patented his son's way to swing in an oval shape on a swing. The patent office originally didn't want to let it through. The father argued that although there are a couple of patents on swing designs, none is about how to swing on one. He got the patent.

    IIRC, someone patented a cap with an american football goalpost on top, and a little ball on a spring to bob around between the posts. It's so stupid, it makes even a propeller beanie seem decent by comparison.

    Speaking of american football, there's IIRC a patent on a crochet "replica" of a helmet.

    A quick googling also produced this abomination of a hat that claims to be patented.

    Etc.

    So basically not only you would probably get a patent on that pizza layout, it wouldn't even be the worst you could do with patents. By far. All legal and with them actually reading it.
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  24. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  25. Re:Metric? by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, it certainly confirms their usual methodology is to just pound it out. ;-)

    "I'm nearly two kilometers tall."

  26. finally, a REAL reason to bash microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    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

  27. Prior Art. by mikelieman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tom Smykowski: Well-well look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  28. Re:Karma Bedamned! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You have a hotmail email address.

  29. Prior Art by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am prior art, having served as a Program Manager on various occaisions. I would like to see them sue me over my resume.