IBM Patents Optimization

jamie(really) writes "IBM appears to want to patent optimizing programs by trial and error, which in the history of programming has, of course, never been done. Certainly, all my optimizations have been the result of good planning. Well done IBM for coming up with this clever idea. What is claimed is: 'A method for developing a computer program product, the method comprising: evaluating one or more refactoring actions to determine a performance attribute; associating the performance attribute with a refactoring action used in computer code; and undoing the refactoring action of the computer code based on the performance attribute. The method of claim 1 wherein the undoing refactoring is performed when the performance attribute indicates a negative performance effect of the computer code.'"

Comments

Here's an idea:

[mea37]

If you're going to comment on a patent, read the patent first.

"IBM appears to want to patent optimizing programs by trial and error"... ...except that isn't what the patent claims describe. I'll grant that if your expectations have been set to believe that's what the patent covers (as mine had been by the summary), then it's possible to interpret the claims in a way that conforms to that assumption; but if you actually read the entire patent to understand the claims in context, that isn't what they really say.

What they are trying to patent is a specific optimization - that of reversing refactorings that the programmer did. If you would like to debate why this is, or isn't, a valid thing to patent, go right ahead; but please don't waste the debate by talking about all the different code optimization schemes that don't do what the patent describes and pretending they are prior art.

Not About Trial and Error

[Grond]

If you read the description, the claimed invention is not about trial and error development. The idea is that every time code is refactored, the development environment will tag the refactoring. Refactorings that could affect performance are transparently undone at compile time, so long as it wouldn't change the functional behavior of the program. Thus, the developer sees nice, neat comprehensible code, and the compiler sees more optimized, compiler-friendly code.

Also, if you look the application up on PAIR (the PTO's public patent application database, which contains more detail than the regular patent search or Google Patents), you'll see that it's a new case. That is, the Patent Office hasn't examined the application yet. It's highly likely that after a few rounds of office actions the claims will not look like the current ones. They will probably be narrower and hew more closely to the description in the specification.

Re:The abstract is *not* the patent

[radtea]

The patented stuff is the "claims".

Incredibly enough what is quoted in the summary is actually the first claim. It looks like the abstract is just about identical, so it may be an oversight on the part of the /. editors, who in the past have routinely mangled patent stories so badly as to make one suspect they love the patent system so much that they can't find anything truthful to say about it that looks bad. But in this case they've done the right thing, and the claims are actually as dumb as the summary makes them sound.