Supreme Court Orders Do-Over On Key Software Patents

Fluffeh writes "It seems that the U.S. Supreme Court has an itch it just can't scratch. A patent granted to the Ultramercial company covers the concept of allowing users to watch a pre-roll advertisement as an alternative to paying for premium content and the company is demanding fees from the likes of Hulu and YouTube. Another company called WildTangent, however, is challenging Ultramercial's 'invention' as merely an abstract idea not eligible for patent protection. Add to this a recent ruling by the Supreme Court restricting patents — albeit on medical diagnostic techniques — and you get into a bit of a pickle. The Supreme Court is now sending the Ultramercial case back to the lower courts for another round, which doesn't mean that the court disagrees with the original ruling, but rather that it thinks it is a patent case that is relevant to the situation and they want to re-examine it under this new light."

Comments

What else is there to say?

[LordNicholas]

This nonsense is crushing innovation. It's one more in a long line of examples of how we need to reevaluate how we govern ourselves.

Re:What else is there to say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents have never been an innovation incentive, hell look at what Alexander Graham Bell did with telecom, his company sat on patents and expanded glacially making sure to profit from a few key technologies in what would become backbone areas, it was only when patents started expiring that telephones started spreading, and even then his legacy is still apparent in monopolies across North America

Imagine if Nikola Tesla had defended the design of the electric motor as viciously as Bell had telecom, the mind boggles...

Re:What else is there to say?

[isopropanol]

Hell froze over; I'm siding with WildTangent.

Re:What else is there to say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame useless congress for patents and how asinine its become. When did the supreme court started having to do Congress job. Congress has become such a joke.

Re:What else is there to say?

[magarity]

This nonsense is crushing innovation. It's one more in a long line of examples of how we need to reevaluate how we govern ourselves.

Sure it's nonsense, but I appreciate how the Supreme Court moves slowly and thoughtfully compared to the other branches of government. Perhaps they move a bit too slowly some times but the other two move so knee-jerk quickly most of the time that maybe the SC needs to be even slower to balance it out.

Re:What else is there to say?

[Anonymous Coward]

This nonsense is crushing innovation. It's one more in a long line of examples of how we need to reevaluate how we govern ourselves.

Completely agree. Now if we can just get the ignorant masses to recognize that not only are they pare of the problem, but that their zombie-like endorcement of a two party system will only encourage further corruption.

Personally, I bet on stupidity. The stupidity of stupidity never fails.

Re:What else is there to say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, that old chestnut, if the product is so great and you're first to sell it you'll recoup your costs.

"But what if someone steals your idea" you say, well that already happens and if that person makes it to the patent office first you're still fucked.

Again, who invented the telephone? Innocenzo Manzetti, Antonio Meucci, Johann Philipp Reis, Elisha Gray, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison... ?

Bell was the only one awarded the patent so all those other guys lost out, had there been no patent system there would have been healthy competition between them potentially leading to more innovation in the field as it developed.

Re:What else is there to say?

[Rob Y.]

...except on deciding that 'money == speech'. They were quick as bunnies deciding that. Faster than you can say "money also == bribery".

Re:What else is there to say?

[Blindman]

You can't talk about crushing innovation in the abstract. First, what affect if any does patent protection have on this type of "invention"? Absent a patent, would somebody have done this anyway? You can't crush the inevitable. Second, the question in this context is whether this patent should be entitled to patent protection. Stated another way, is this a patent to an idea or an application of that idea? Is this a special way of allowing users to watch a pre-roll advertisement or is it the idea itself? One deserves patent protection and the other does not.

Re:What else is there to say?

[UnknownSoldier]

Spot on for the wired telephone.

You missed Canadian Reginald Aubrey Fessende for the wireless telephone ;-)

        Who first used the word and the method of continuous waves?
        Who was first to transmit voice over radio?
        Who devised a detector for continuous waves?
        Who first used the method, and the word heterodyne?
        Who was first to send two-way wireless telegraphy messages across the Atlantic ocean?
        Who was first to send wireless telephony (voice) across the Atlantic Ocean?
        Who made the world's first wireless broadcast (voice and music)?

Fascinating read!
http://www.ieee.ca/millennium/radio/radio_radioscientist.html

Re:What else is there to say?

[subreality]

Patents were never intended to be an incentive for innovation. They're incentive to document and disclose the invention so that after the patent expires everyone gets to benefit from it instead of it remaining a trade secret forever.

Unfortunately they've never done a good job of that either. Most things that are patented are either sufficiently obvious once you see them that no documentation was really necessary (eg, the cotton gin), or for non-obvious things (like a process to manufacture a chemical economically) the patents tend to be sufficiently obfuscated to make them essentially impossible to follow.

Re:What else is there to say?

[mk1004]

If someone steals your idea, assuming you've created or are in the process of creating a product, then even if they get a patent, you've got prior art.

Re:What else is there to say?

[AmberBlackCat]

I personally think the only reason they're considering getting rid of this patent is, it could hold back corporations from shoving advertisements down your throat, which is something they really want to do. If the only people interested in this were millions of hardworking American citizens, nothing would be done about it.

Re:What else is there to say?

[chrismcb]

Patents have never been an innovation incentive,

I'm not saying they are, or aren't. But they are supposed to be. You know:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

I guess we could argue what it means by "promote the progress"

Re:What else is there to say?

[bill_mcgonigle]

This nonsense is crushing innovation.

So, it's working as intended. Perhaps not as James Madison had intended, but how every corporatist and high-ranking bureaucrat since then have understood it to work.

Oh, wait, we're supposed to believe that 90% of everybody is stupid, and this is all incompetence for the past two hundred years and we should go about our merry way. I stand corrected.

Re:What else is there to say?

[DedTV]

It appears everyone's funny bones have become infected. They should use MyCleanPC on their Humerus!

Re:What else is there to say?

[tragedy]

Heck, in the case of Bell and Gray, their patents were submitted on the same day. In fact, there's some pretty damning evidence that Bell had a spy in the patent office who alerted Bell's lawyer of Gray's application and inserted Bell's into the queue before it.

Re:What else is there to say?

[Anonymous Coward]

BS, this activity by the court was made necessary by the assholes at the patent office who give out patents just because someone submitted them.

I quote Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 8 of the U. S. Constitution it says in part "the congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective discoveries. Just how does giving a user the hellish choice of paying for something or accepting by force a duty to view an advertisement promote science, the useful art, or meet rational standards sufficient to be a discovery?

Re:What else is there to say?

[cboslin]

So many misconceptions around patents, especially patents related to electric power generation and alternative energy devices. In spite of their abuse, we have a viable solution, that I mention at the end.

Patents have never been an innovation incentive,

You are right on the money there, today patents are used along with the courts by those with the financial means to put up road blocks to and prevent competition. To prevent individuals from going around them, THEY pay allot of money for political influence up to and including the court systems in the USA. They effectively use our hard earned money against us through our choices and purchases.

Readers should be aware that there are over 4,000 “secretized” patents in the vault at the Patent Office (Park 5 Bldg.). They never receive a patent number and the inventor is rarely, if ever, compensated by the government for use of the invention. This was news to me, therefore I am sure it will be news to many others.

Tom Valone, the person who stated the above fact about the over 4,000 secretized patents, was wrongly fired for daring to put together an energy conference in Washington DC. How dare he put together a conference for inventors to share their discoveries and information on new energy technologies...right? Tom sued, spending over six years in the courts, to get reinstated. He did, get reinstated, and received all six years of back pay.

You think Tom Valone had a case....yea me too.

How many of us could or would dare sue to get our jobs back after wrongfully being terminated? Of course if you are in one of the many right to work for less states, you would not be able to sue.

Could you even last six years to pursue such a court case? They have wiped out most if not all of our emergency reserves, haven't they.

These patents are deemed threats to National Security and we all have seen all the laws passed by both Republicans and Democrats in this area over the last 50 years. The Text of Generic Patent Secrecy Order is worth a read and at the bottom of this document, just scroll all the way down. Inventors that dare attempt to get a patent, get a secretized patent gag order and violates it would get over 20 years in federal prison...under penalties of 35 U.S.C (1952) 182, 186. Note the date, 1952.

Imagine if Nikola Tesla had defended the design of the electric motor as viciously as Bell had telecom, the mind boggles...

J.P. Morgan owned all of Tesla's early work, especially related to electricity, As soon as he discovered that a device could be created that would thwart his "electric grid" power monopoly, he shut him down. Since J.P. Morgan owned it (and controlled the print media as of 1917, excerpt from U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947 by Congressman Callaway Texas, a member of the -defense appropriations- committee) he would never have sought out patents to develop the device, however it would not surprise me to learn that he filed patents for key pieces that would prevent others from securing patents on technology that would undermine his monopoly.

Forget about creating, buying or selling any energy related invention, as over 4,000 others made that mistake and the government shut them down.

We all have a solution, a personal choice to make. . .

The solution is to realize you can NOT (now

Re:What else is there to say?

[cboslin]

Heck, in the case of Bell and Gray, their patents were submitted on the same day. In fact, there's some pretty damning evidence that Bell had a spy in the patent office who alerted Bell's lawyer of Gray's application and inserted Bell's into the queue before it.

That does not surprise me at all. Sucks big time. How many of you know that over 4,000 “secretized” patents in the vault at the Patent Office (Park 5 Bldg.). They never receive a patent number and the inventor is rarely, if ever, compensated by the government for use of the invention. This was news to me, therefore I am sure it will be news to many others.

Re:What else is there to say?

[cboslin]

You can't talk about crushing innovation in the abstract. ... You can't crush the inevitable.

Per Tom Valone, over 4,000 investors who applied for patents, recieving secretized patents instead, would disagree with you. (scroll to the bottom or search for Tom Valone.

Tom Valone, the person who stated the above fact about the over 4,000 secretized patents, was wrongly fired for daring to put together an energy conference in Washington DC. How dare he put together a conference for inventors to share their discoveries and information on new energy technologies...right? Tom sued, spending over six years in the courts, to get reinstated. He did, get reinstated, and received all six years of back pay.

Obviously the courts believed Tom Valone, so why should not everyone reading this?

Not only can the US Government crush you they do a great job of assisting corporations in suppression of inventions and patents, especially related to energy. And if they can not suppress you they will make your death look like an accident.

Do it for yourself, don't tell anyone but your closest and dearest friends and warn them of the danger in talking about it as well. Financially benefit yourself.

Meanwhile...

[betterunixthanunix]

Try as I might, I seem to be unable to get a patent on Euclid's algorithm.

Re:Meanwhile...

[Rogerborg]

Add, "...on a computer", noob.

Re:Meanwhile...

[w_dragon]

I think they're getting wise to that now. Try '...on a social network'.

Re:Meanwhile...

[ColdWetDog]

"On a social network running on a computer attached to the Internet."

I win!

Re:Meanwhile...

[cjb658]

Now I shall patent the mobile version...

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to make it a common geometric shape and copyright it, just for good measure (and bigger lawsuits, obviously meaning more money for you).

Re:Meanwhile...

[Zaphod The 42nd]

Add, "...on a computer", noob.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore. -Farnsworth

Re:Meanwhile...

[hobarrera]

Try "on a portable device".

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

Add, "...on a computer", noob.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore. -Farnsworth

Add "In space"?

Patents that cover concepts?

[chemicaldave]

How is that even possible? What if someone had patented the concept of "auctions" or "transportation of persons other than by foot"?

Re:Patents that cover concepts?

[KermodeBear]

Someone already has won a patent on the concept of online auctions. All you have to do is take anything people do anyway, add "but do it online!" and you have your new patent. It's pretty awful.

Re:Patents that cover concepts?

[hairyfeet]

It is simple, all empires must fall. looking at history i believe there is a pattern there that simply can't be altered, which is first grow and innovate, then the ultra rich use their power to consolidate, then they try to stifle and crush those that could compete, which thanks to the stagnation allows others in other places to rise and the empire falls.

Look at how the USA got to where it is, by "stealing" the ideas of Europe which had become buried under patents, innovating, and coming with new and fresh ideas and ways of doing things. And now the east is doing the same exact thing to us because our rich have consolidated as much as they can and now are using patents and copyrights to lock up as much for themselves. Again with this comes stagnation until it finally all just falls to crap. Hell we went from a manufacturing powerhouse to "lawsuit land" in less than 50 years.

It seems we are forever doomed to repeat history, because the rich and powerful simply don't see we ALL stand on the shoulders of giants, that is how new ways of doing are born. No idea is truly just born of the ether, all are influenced by those around them and their betters in their field. You mark my words, what you will see now is ever deeper stagnation as more and more toll booths and roadblocks are put up by those that wish to own a market and would rather crush an enemy than compete while the east will learn from our ideas and make them better.

Look at the Chinese gov owned loongson chip company, they are mixing hardware x86 emulation into a MIPS chip, that is new and different but of course since that's all patented and copyrighted up the ass here you could never do that on American soil. Now imagine say doing that with ARM, having a specialized emulation chip that would allow some X86 to run while turning itself off when X86 was not required. or hell build some more simplistic X86 chips like Atom and bobcat that could be switched on and off on the fly with a quad ARM and a decent GPU...all on one die and able to communicate VERY fast with each other because they were all part of the same silicon. wouldn't that be awesome? Can't build that here though. in the future i bet you'll hear that more and more, "couldn't build THAT in the USA!" and that is why we will lose to the east. the IP laws here encourage not innovation but stagnation.

Re:Patents that cover concepts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we are patenting a cut of meat. as the next step in the patent insanity.

As Slate’s Matthew Yglesias points out, such a patent on a process — “an algorithm for butchering a cow” — rather than a product, isn’t dissimilar from existing business and software copyrights. But that doesn’t make it any less ridiculous. If the cutting of a steak can be considered intellectual property, we wonder what else would qualify. Haircuts perhaps? We’re just waiting for someone to patent the “Rachel.”

Once you take the first step, for "patenting a process", you can patent anything, as "it is a process".

As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[betterunixthanunix]

How is the concept of computing something substantially different from an algorithm that computes something? Patents are supposed to be on physical inventions, not abstract ideas. The formal, "When run on a computer," clause does not mean a math^H^H^H^Hsoftware patent is somehow not a patent on an abstract idea.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

Patents are supposed to be on physical inventions, not abstract ideas.

35 USC 101 states that "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." Processes aren't "physical inventions".

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[betterunixthanunix]

Except that the process clause is meant to cover industrial processes that are not strictly machines, but which are physical inventions nevertheless (at least in the sense that they transform physical material from one form to another).

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Billly Gates]

That is a new law.

The original constitution states "physical inventions".

  If it subverts the original meaning that is grounds for the supreme court to throw it out. The second issue is math should not be patentable because they are laws of nature and not manmade. Computer algorithms are just this and a process is simply math. Laws of nature have been ruled not to be patentable as well in the past and I think your text from the America Invents act are clearly unconstitutional but I am no lawyer.

What I want to know is if laws of nature as unpatentable are a European idea or American or both? The grandparent is correct in that original patents were for physical inventions with a prototype already functional only. Not for an idea. Otherwise everyone would be quite wealthy or broke as nothing could be made without infringing on everyone else.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

Except that the process clause is meant to cover industrial processes that are not strictly machines, but which are physical inventions nevertheless (at least in the sense that they transform physical material from one form to another).

Agreed... But that doesn't mean that the "process" is a "physical invention," but rather that it must operate on a machine or perform a transformation of some physical material, no (hence the old CAFC test). At which point, software that operates a controller counts.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[trum4n]

I'm wondering how sharing files is illegal and worthy of jail time, and fuckers like this get no punishment. They arn't even shut down. Fraud is illegal. Fucking do something about it already!

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that Congress had in mind that marketing or merchandising ideas could be patented, for example, the idea of a chain of superstores located mostly in the distant suburbs like Wal-Mart. I think what they meant was, businessmen scratching their heads thinking what a killing they could make if they could only do X. Then some bright person comes along and invents a non-obvious process Y for doing X. Y is patentable, X is not. There should opportunity for other inventors to come along and invent Z and Q for accomplishing X, that do not infringe on the Y patent.

What we see are a lot of patents for X.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Billly Gates]

Thats because the grandparent makes money for having SEO and having Google show MyCleanPC top, for any of the keywords typed.

Now if it doesn't make profit. Then its ILLEGAL. But not if its used to make money

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[vinayg18]

When an action (or lack thereof) is suspicious, follow the money. There's no money for the MAFIAA in pursuing these spammers.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

That is a new law.

"New" as in from 1790. Specifically, the 1790 Patent Act - passed just 3 years after the Constitution was drafted - included as patentable subject matter "any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement therein." The term "useful art," as it was known at the time, meant an industrial process.

The original constitution states "physical inventions".

Au contraire. The Constitution grants Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

The phrase "physical inventions" does not appear in the Constitution.

In fact, the word "physical" does not appear in the Constitution.

If it subverts the original meaning that is grounds for the supreme court to throw it out.

First, as noted above, the same people who wrote the Constitution wrote the Patent Act, passing it just a couple years later. Thomas Jefferson was the first Patent Examiner. It's a pretty tough argument to say that the founders didn't understand what the founders intended.

Second, the patent clause of the Constitution is one of the explicitly enumerated powers of Congress, and Congress has the power to pass any laws "necessary and proper" to performing those powers. Which means that the Supreme Court is supremely deferential when it comes to whether Congress has the power to pass a law regarding one of those enumerated powers. Basically, if Congress says that "useful arts" includes processes, the Supreme Court isn't going to reverse that by arguing they lack the power to define "useful arts".

Third, as noted, the Constitution doesn't include "physical inventions" as a limitation. Accordingly, it's a misreading to say that by allowing patenting of processes, they are "subverting the original meaning". I think you're getting confused with an entirely different clause - the "to promote the progress of [the] useful arts". Whether patenting processes subverts that is an entirely different question, which as of yet, you've not raised.

The second issue is math should not be patentable because they are laws of nature and not manmade. Computer algorithms are just this and a process is simply math.

You're right, and that's why computer algorithms are not patentable by themselves. Instead, they must be explicitly tied to a machine or performed by a machine, because machines are not laws of nature, nor are they man-made.

Laws of nature have been ruled not to be patentable as well in the past and I think your text from the America Invents act are clearly unconstitutional but I am no lawyer.

I have no idea what part of the AIA you're referring to. It says nothing about patenting laws of nature. Would you care to quote a passage?

What I want to know is if laws of nature as unpatentable are a European idea or American or both?

Both. However, "software patents" are patentable in both Europe and America, provided they are tied to a physical machine. It is software per se that is unpatentable.

The grandparent is correct in that original patents were for physical inventions with a prototype already functional only. Not for an idea.

As noted above, the grandparent is provably wrong, based on the Constitution and the original Patent Act of 1790. Additionally, the requirement of a prototype went away in 1880.

Otherwise everyone would be quite wealthy or broke as nothing could be made without infringing on everyone else.

And yet the economy continues and Apple

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[blueg3]

The original constitution states "physical inventions".

What original constitution are you referring to?

Certainly the U.S. Constitution itself doesn't say "physical inventions": "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

The 1790 Patent Act says: "any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement thereon not before known or used".

In 1793, it was amended to say: "any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter".

That language seems to carry to the modern-day implementation.

The second issue is math should not be patentable because they are laws of nature and not manmade.

Whether or not mathematics exists as a real thing independent of its conception by man is a matter of philosophy. Mathematical realists would agree with you, but others might not.

Regardless, not all mathematics is a "law of nature". Mathematics may be naturally-existing ("discovered" rather than "invented"), but in order to be a law of nature, some natural physical system's behavior must be described by the mathematical relationship. The RSA algorithm, for example, which is strictly mathematics (though patented) does not describe any natural system.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[JamieThomson]

And yet the economy continues and Apple is the wealthiest company in the world. People complain that the patent act stifles innovation or makes it so unprofitable to innovate that no one does it, but they have no evidence for this other than gut feelings, and it's contraindicated by the incredible innovations being made right now.

It might not be the end of the world, but it could very well be stifling innovation. As in, if we didn't have such a nonsensical patent system, we'd probably have more innovation. Patent trolls and idiotic patents are a real problem.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Billly Gates]

Laws of nature are math. Plain and simple and should not be patentable PERIOD. Infact a process is math where you do this, then, do that. It doesn't matter where its performed. Just because a computer does it doesn't make it patentable and no longer laws of nature or math. If laws of nature are ruled unpatentable then most of these patents need to be thrown out! A process can not be patentable therefore they need to be thrown out as well.

The arts are refering to blue prints for industrial designs. Not expressions as is the common definition of arts today. I can make a patent for anything and just say "Used in a tablet/computer .." otherwise and get away with patenting math or any other law of nature. That is sneaky and I should not be able to get a patent on anything that would be impossible if it were not at work or in a computer then its patentable.

I doubt a process is considered an arts in design at all. You can't own something that is not real or already exists. A blueprint on the otherhand is a design to an invention in contrast and yes that is man made and real.

Expressions and laws of nature/math, or anything else like a series of steps are not real and therefore not patentable.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

It might not be the end of the world, but it could very well be stifling innovation. As in, if we didn't have such a nonsensical patent system, we'd probably have more innovation.

It's a good starting hypothesis, but where's your evidence?

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

Laws of nature are math. Plain and simple and should not be patentable PERIOD.

And they aren't. I already said this, you don't need to keep repeating it as if you've said something new.

Infact a process is math where you do this, then, do that. It doesn't matter where its performed. Just because a computer does it doesn't make it patentable and no longer laws of nature or math. If laws of nature are ruled unpatentable then most of these patents need to be thrown out! A process can not be patentable therefore they need to be thrown out as well.

But processes are explicitly patentable under 35 USC 101, provided they're not merely the mathematical steps.

The arts are refering to blue prints for industrial designs. Not expressions as is the common definition of arts today.

No, they aren't. As it was used in 1787, the term "useful arts" referred to any industrial process, including smelting, forging, shaping, etc. Interestingly, the term "science" referred to expressions of knowledge. Amazing how language changes.

But "blueprints"? No.

I can make a patent for anything and just say "Used in a tablet/computer .." otherwise and get away with patenting math or any other law of nature.

First, no, you can't. Find me a patent that includes a mathematical algorithm, the phrase "used in a computer", and nothing else. I'll wait.

Second, even if you could, then you wouldn't be patenting the math. It could still be freely used outside of a computer.

I doubt a process is considered an arts in design at all.

I have no idea what that sentence was trying to say.

You can't own something that is not real or already exists. A blueprint on the otherhand is a design to an invention in contrast and yes that is man made and real.

Expressions and laws of nature/math, or anything else like a series of steps are not real and therefore not patentable.

And they aren't. However, an industrial process, such as cold forging, is patentable. Even if it's not a blueprint.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[betterunixthanunix]

Sure, and that was the original logic behind the first software patent. The difference is that today's software patents are not on industrial processes, they are on pure mathematics, which is not supposed to be patentable.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

Sure, and that was the original logic behind the first software patent. The difference is that today's software patents are not on industrial processes, they are on pure mathematics, which is not supposed to be patentable.

But they're not. As noted above, today's software patents "operate on a machine or perform a transformation of some physical material" - such as "operat[ing] a controller". There aren't any "pure mathematics" patents.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[neoshroom]

The second issue is math should not be patentable because they are laws of nature and not manmade. Computer algorithms are just this and a process is simply math.

You're right, and that's why computer algorithms are not patentable by themselves. Instead, they must be explicitly tied to a machine or performed by a machine, because machines are not laws of nature, nor are they man-made.

Ah, I see you are one of those religious fundamentalists. Machines are far too complex to be man made! All those intricacies and complexities. They must be made by God. Amen brother!

On the 1st day God created computers. On the 0th day he rested. Then there was a recursive loop, a segfault and a buffer overflow, and that explains how things came to be. Hallelujah!

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[the eric conspiracy]

Like hell it is new law. The very first US patent issued in 1790 is for an improved process for the manufacture of potash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FirstUSpatent.jpg

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[spire3661]

O please, the chilling effect from the current patent situation is felt by every maker on the planet.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

O please, the chilling effect from the current patent situation is felt by every maker on the planet.

So, no real evidence, just anecdotes and intuition?

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[betterunixthanunix]

There aren't any "pure mathematics" patents.

What about these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECC_patents

Or these:

http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/2012/04/04/38707/

Or any of the hundreds of other patents on mathematics? What specific machine or material does a patent on finite field representations cover? Keep in mind that Certicom claims that its patents cover all computer architectures equally.

These are not industrial processes, these are not specific machines, these are patents on pure math with a formal statement about running the software on some computer.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[JesseMcDonald]

The term "useful art," as it was known at the time, meant an industrial process.

Exactly—and an industrial process is a specific way of making a physical product. This is completely separate from the abstract processes under discussion, which are aspects of mathematics—natural laws—waiting to be discovered, not applications of those laws invented to further the production of a specific material good, which is the essence of a "useful art".

The critical term, of course, isn't "useful arts" (which only occurs in the justification, not the actual power) but "Inventors". Algorithms aren't invented. Like other natural laws, they're discovered. Invention requires the application of the laws thus discovered toward a specific, concrete end.

The second issue is math should not be patentable because they are laws of nature and not manmade. Computer algorithms are just this and a process is simply math.

You're right, and that's why computer algorithms are not patentable by themselves. Instead, they must be explicitly tied to a machine or performed by a machine, because machines are not laws of nature, nor are they man-made.

While this is a very common argument, making it requires one to be (deliberately?) obtuse. A patent on an algorithm[1] running on a general-purpose computer is indistinguishable from a patent on the algorithm itself. The algorithm, as a universal natural law, is not eligible. The general-purpose computer was not invented by the applicant, and the use of one to evaluate any algorithm is obvious, as this is the purpose and nature of any general-purpose computer. What is left to patent?

If Google is to be believed, we'll have wearable heads-up displays by the end of the year. I mean, come on - that's freakin' science fiction right there.

Only if they can navigate the patent minefield, and manage to get it to market without anyone blocking it with an injunction. The way the mobile market is looking right now (approaching a complete all-vs.-all digraph of lawsuits), that's not looking very likely.

Moreover, it's not like the primary roadblock preventing use from having these sorts of wearable HUDs was ever in the software to begin with. It's just taken this long to develop the miniaturized logic circuits, displays, and batteries necessary to make it practical. Are you really trying to argue that no one would develop the (rather trivial) algorithms needed for HUDs without software patents?

[1] There are no "computer" algorithms, just universal mathematical algorithms which computers happen to be able to evaluate.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you repeat that as a custom hosts file?

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Svartalf]

The real problem lies in what's getting patented in the software space.

IF you accept that much of the software space is a process description (I have a few issues with this...), then the bulk of the stuff out there is NOT novel. In many cases, you just call it being implemented in software, on the internet, on a smart phone and it's magically novel enough to merit a patent.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[oxdas]

Wow, where should I begin; false dilemma, straw man, coincidental correlation? False dilemma: Just because there are significant innovations now, does not mean that there would not be more significant innovations without software patents. Straw man: Stifling innovation is not the same as making "it so unprofitable to innovate that no one does it", which is the point you go on to attack. Coincidental correlation: Just because we have patents and then innovation does not prove that patents cause innovation.

Considering that innovation predates patents (so there cannot be an exclusive causal effect), where is your evidence that patents further innovation?

(Personally, I believe patents can encourage innovation, but I also believe in the proverb "too much of a good thing, is a bad thing.")

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

There aren't any "pure mathematics" patents.

What about these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECC_patents
Or these:
http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/2012/04/04/38707/
Or any of the hundreds of other patents on mathematics?

That's a link to wiki and a blog. Neither of those are patents. Is there a specific patent number you're referring to?

These are not industrial processes, these are not specific machines, these are patents on pure math with a formal statement about running the software on some computer.

So, in other words, they're not patents on pure math?
It would be easier to discuss this if you'd provide a specific patent number so that we can discuss a set of claims, rather than a wiki page or blog post about someone's interpretation of some "hundreds of other patents" that are not in front of us. I'm happy to discuss any patent number you name.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[spire3661]

trollolololololol you dont want to debate, you want to argue. If you cant understand how the current patent situation can stifle innovation, then you arent paying attention. By their very nature, patents restrict, not enable. So while we get more money driven inventions, that doesnt automatically mean that its the most productive system or that its societal benefit is maximized. Patents are a nicety given by society to encourage innovation. If it becomes apparent that patents stifle more then they benefit, then the entire concept needs to be revisited. Patents are for SOCIETAL benefit, with a side dish of offering the inventor a nice little limited monopoly to give him a 'attaboy'.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[mark-t]

Processes aren't necessarily abstract ideas either. Although you're right that patents can apply to things other than physical inventions, they are *NOT* supposed to apply to abstract ideas.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Billly Gates]

Mod parent up!

That is the point. I can't patent respiration as an example because it is a nature and not man-made. Can I then patent respiration while typing on a laptop computer. The patent trolls say yes!

I say BS. It is still nature and is abstract and not applicable if you did not invent the computer. Its just another way to patent something when used X. Displaying an AD is abstract and not a process of manufacturing and has been done before. Just not on a computer screen.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

Exactly—and an industrial process is a specific way of making a physical product. This is completely separate from the abstract processes under discussion, which are aspects of mathematics—natural laws—waiting to be discovered, not applications of those laws invented to further the production of a specific material good, which is the essence of a "useful art".

Yes, and? The original discussion was whether "process" is not included in the patent act as a patent-eligible category. As you agree, it is. And I agree, abstract processes - a subset of "processes" - are not patentable.

The critical term, of course, isn't "useful arts" (which only occurs in the justification, not the actual power) but "Inventors". Algorithms aren't invented. Like other natural laws, they're discovered. Invention requires the application of the laws thus discovered toward a specific, concrete end.

Agreed. Fortunately, patents claim applications of those laws, and not the laws themselves.

While this is a very common argument, making it requires one to be (deliberately?) obtuse. A patent on an algorithm[1] running on a general-purpose computer is indistinguishable from a patent on the algorithm itself.

Says you. A patent on a computer running an algorithm explicitly does not cover performing the algorithm in your head, on a pad of paper, inherently when you do some other function, etc. It is quite distinguishable.

The algorithm, as a universal natural law, is not eligible. The general-purpose computer was not invented by the applicant, and the use of one to evaluate any algorithm is obvious, as this is the purpose and nature of any general-purpose computer. What is left to patent?

That's not a requirement. I can invent a new automobile transmission, and the fact that I wasn't the one who invented the automobile is irrelevant. You've created a new rule whereby each industry gets one patent by the founder of that industry, and any improvements in that industry are forever unpatentable because they incorporate something not invented by the applicant.

If Google is to be believed, we'll have wearable heads-up displays by the end of the year. I mean, come on - that's freakin' science fiction right there.

Only if they can navigate the patent minefield, and manage to get it to market without anyone blocking it with an injunction. The way the mobile market is looking right now (approaching a complete all-vs.-all digraph of lawsuits), that's not looking very likely.

Let's remember this post and come back in a year. If Google Glasses makes it to market, then you can publicly post a retraction statement that patents don't stifle innovation. Sounds good?

Of course you won't agree to that, though, because there will always be some future product that you can pessimistically say will be vaporware due to patents. It's a very goalpost-moving based argument.

How about this - we have multitouch tablets. Lots of them. In spite of the fact that there are patent disputes, they're selling like hotcakes. And furthermore, we didn't have them 10 years ago. We can look at the past, during which there has been both software patents and patent litigation, and say "look, innovation." Can you do the same and show that the software industry has stagnated because of patent disputes?

Moreover, it's not like the primary roadblock preventing use from having these sorts of wearable HUDs was ever in the software to begin with. It's just taken this long to develop the miniaturized logic circuits, displays, and batteries necessary to make it practical. Are you really trying to argue that no one would develop the (rather trivial) algorithms needed for HUDs without software patents?

I'm saying that software patents require hardware, and as such, innovations in software-using hardware indicate that software patents are not stifling innovation, as many claim. You seem to be arguing that patents on pure software (which, I may add, don't exist) stifle innovation somewhere, but haven't yet pointed out any such area.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[chad_r]

How is the concept of computing something substantially different from an algorithm that computes something? Patents are supposed to be on physical inventions, not abstract ideas. The formal, "When run on a computer," clause does not mean a math^H^H^H^Hsoftware patent is somehow not a patent on an abstract idea.

The concept is different from an algorithm when your patent is on the end result and not the process. That's the problem; there is no way to work at a different solution because the patent covers EVERY solution. What patent abusers really want to patent is the idea -- an auction, meeting scheduling, one-click ordering, etc. (on the INTERNET!, to boot) - but those aren't allowed. So they describe what are obvious (to anyone learned in the art of software design) steps to perform their idea. This is where I see the problem. It's an evil fusion between unpatentable ideas and obvious implentations that falsely appears to be a novel process.

As an example, Shazam paid a settlement to Tune Hunter over the idea of music identification. If you read Tune Hunter's actual patent, they only described in detail a method where you hear an interesting song on the radio, press a key fob usb, which can be used to look up the song based on the time and the station's playlist (this sounds like something NPR had given as a promotional item a few years ago, but I'm not sure). Obviously, what Shazam does is nothing like that. Their patent does also include a claim for identification based on sound samples, but they offer no actual process to accomplish this, other than "uses a central processing unit and search stored information as known in the art to analyze the music segment" (emphasis mine). Thus, they flat out admit in the patent that what Shazam is doing is not something they invented. But still Shazam felt threatened by a patent on the idea of "music identification".

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Billly Gates]

How is a patent for showing an ad on a computer screen part of an improved manufacturing process?

Weren't ads invented centuries ago? Weren't they shown on TV screens back in the 1950s?

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

Wow, where should I begin; false dilemma, straw man, coincidental correlation?

Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop.

In particular, quote the previous post so that I know what you're referring to in your arguments.

Considering that innovation predates patents (so there cannot be an exclusive causal effect), where is your evidence that patents further innovation?

Patents have been around for over 500 years, and in that time, the pace of technological innovation has greatly outstripped the pace of innovation prior to the 1500s. On a smaller and more recent scale, I would note that the pace of innovation in software alone has increased tremendously from the pace in the pre-software patent 1960s-1970s to the current pace. Here, we have an industry that spans a patent-eligible era and a non-patent-eligible era within recent memory. Clearly, the existence of patents did not stifle innovation in that time, which is what others claim. Can we prove that patents are responsible for any of that increase in pace? Only circumstantially. However, the evidence for it is a lot stronger than the claims that software would have progressed even farther, had it not been for these gosh-darned patents stifling innovation.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Billly Gates]

So I can patent something on a device I have no rights too? The patent law and constitutional clause states for the inventor.

I can't patent an abstract idea because it is in a car that I performed respiration, or it was a LCD laptop screen that displayed the Ad and not a TV. Yet the patent trolls are saying just this.

Useful Arts have to do with the manufacture process. Not an abstract idea just on another device made from natural laws not invented by applicant. Otherwise I could patent every idea known to man such as typing on a keyboard with a machine with more than 4 gigs of ram. Then patent again with a machine with more than 8 gigs of ram etc.

Its not a real invention anymore since it's an abstract idea that has nothing to do with the useful art of manufacturing or a real product.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

trollolololololol you dont want to debate, you want to argue.

... says the guy whose initial post consisted solely of: "O please, the chilling effect from the current patent situation is felt by every maker on the planet."

If you'd like to come back and actually debate by stating a conclusion supported logical arguments from your evidence-supported premises, then please do. If you'd like to shoot off single-line snipe attacks, then why not just post as an anonymous coward like all other trolls?

If you cant understand how the current patent situation can stifle innovation, then you arent paying attention.

Conclusory statement. Not an argument.

By their very nature, patents restrict, not enable.

Irrelevant, no one had raised an argument that patents "enable" things.

So while we get more money driven inventions, that doesnt automatically mean that its the most productive system or that its societal benefit is maximized.

True, but likewise irrelevant, and fails to support your original argument of a chilling effect. Just because we don't know that the system is not the best system doesn't mean it therefore is the worst system.

Patents are a nicety given by society to encourage innovation. If it becomes apparent that patents stifle more then they benefit, then the entire concept needs to be revisited. Patents are for SOCIETAL benefit, with a side dish of offering the inventor a nice little limited monopoly to give him a 'attaboy'.

Agreed. Now, I'm simply asking for your evidence that patents stifle more than they benefit. This is the original evidence I asked for, to which you demurred and instead said "but everyone knows it exists". If you can't support your conclusion with facts, then, while it may be true, you'll never convince a reasonable person.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[betterunixthanunix]

OK, we can go through these patents, if you want:

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6563928

Can you even see what machine this patent refers to? The closest thing to that is in claim 122,

a data communication system

Which may not even refer to a machine, since we can communicate by shouting at each other across a room, by writing numbers of sheets of paper, etc. This is not even a formal reference to using a computer; it is just a vague reference to the concept of communicating electronically. Otherwise, these claims all cover pure math.

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6782100

Tell me if you can find a claim that even vaguely refers to a machine, because I cannot.

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=5854759

Again, I am not seeing a claim that mentions a machine, but maybe you can point it out for me.

The ball is in your court; tell us how these patents are somehow not actually patents on pure math.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

So I can patent something on a device I have no rights too? The patent law and constitutional clause states for the inventor.

I'm not sure what this is in reference to. Can you quote the previous post or provide more details?

I can't patent an abstract idea because it is in a car that I performed respiration, or it was a LCD laptop screen that displayed the Ad and not a TV. Yet the patent trolls are saying just this.

Do you have a citation of a patent with "[known process for displaying an add on a television] on an LCD laptop display"? Remember, you have to find that in the claims, not just the abstract.

Useful Arts have to do with the manufacture process.

Or other industrial process, but yes.

Not an abstract idea just on another device made from natural laws not invented by applicant. Otherwise I could patent every idea known to man such as typing on a keyboard with a machine with more than 4 gigs of ram. Then patent again with a machine with more than 8 gigs of ram etc.

You're confusing two different statutes: 35 USC 101 is about patent-eligible subject matter. A known or obvious process is directed to patent-eligible subject matter, but is known or obvious and therefore unpatentable under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103, respectively. For example, under 35 USC 103 (obviousness), you could not patent that combination. Typing is known, yes? Keyboards are known, too. 8 GB of RAM is also known. Therefore, one can combine typing + keyboards + 8GB of RAM and the result is obvious under 35 USC 103. However, it still may be directed to a patent-eligible subject matter.

Let's make it easier. Say I wanted to patent a basic internal combustion engine. Nothing fancy, same type as Ford used a hundred years ago. It's a machine, right? Therefore, it's directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101, which says that machines may be patented. However, it's not new, so while it's okay under 35 USC 101, it's not under 35 USC 102.

Complaining that some software patents are trivial and should not have been granted for obviousness is a reasonable complaint... but it's simply unrelated to say that because some software patents are obvious, then no software patents are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Chirs]

Agreed. Now, I'm simply asking for your evidence that patents stifle more than they benefit. This is the original evidence I asked for, to which you demurred and instead said "but everyone knows it exists". If you can't support your conclusion with facts, then, while it may be true, you'll never convince a reasonable person.

I am a computer programmer. The assumption is we probably infringe on something even if we invented it independently, so we have been explicitly told not to look at any patents related to our field because we could be liable for treble damages if it appears we may have knowingly infringed.

This is chilling because it means I'm not supposed to see what other people are doing, even though we may be able to trivially work around it.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Anonymous Coward]

When an action (or lack thereof) is suspicious, follow the money.
There's no money for the MAFIAA in pursuing these spammers.

Quick question: How much actual money has the **AA collected in the course of their lawyer fetish? And of that, how much was anything approaching a profit, after considering the aforementioned lawyers they needed to pay to satisfy their aforementioned fetish?

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[BenLeeImp]

http://www.google.com/patents/US6384822

This seems pretty "pure mathematics" to me. I suppose the phosphors of a monitor count as a physical material, but I think that's stretching it a bit.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Billly Gates]

The reference is in the story that a patent troll sued Wild Tangent claiming they had the right to display an ad on a computer screen and needed to pay up.

Putting an ad on a screen is an abstract process already done in television so why is it magically different if its on a computer?

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

OK, we can go through these patents, if you want:
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6563928

Claims must be read in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The "broadest possible reading" of a term applies during prosecution, but in litigation, the claims must be interpreted more narrowly based on the spec. In this case, the claims recite correspondents, which the spec describes as including a random number generator and performing computing functions. While it's possible to read these as humans, I think a more reasonable reading is that they're computers.

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6782100
Tell me if you can find a claim that even vaguely refers to a machine, because I cannot.

That one's even easier. Claim 1 recites a cryptosystem, which is illustrated in FIG. 2 including an ALU and RAM.

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=5854759
Again, I am not seeing a claim that mentions a machine, but maybe you can point it out for me.

Claim 1: "1. A method of generating in a digital data processor..."

The ball is in your court; tell us how these patents are somehow not actually patents on pure math.

There you go. In all cases, pure math - or performing the steps in your head or on a pad of paper - would not be covered by the patent claims. Therefore, they can't be claiming pure math.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

http://www.google.com/patents/US6384822

This seems pretty "pure mathematics" to me. I suppose the phosphors of a monitor count as a physical material, but I think that's stretching it a bit.

Claim 1: "1. A 3-D graphics method performed by a computer for real-time rendering of shadows in 3-D scenes to be displayed on a computer monitor..."

The claim explicitly requires a computer and a monitor. That's not pure mathematics. The pure mathematical algorithm is outside of the claims - if you did it in your head, by definition, you could not possibly infringe the patent.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

The reference is in the story that a patent troll sued Wild Tangent claiming they had the right to display an ad on a computer screen and needed to pay up.

Putting an ad on a screen is an abstract process already done in television so why is it magically different if its on a computer?

Do you have a patent number we can look at?

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Chirs]

Find me a patent that includes a mathematical algorithm, the phrase "used in a computer", and nothing else. I'll wait.

Second, even if you could, then you wouldn't be patenting the math. It could still be freely used outside of a computer.

How about Apple's "slide to unlock" patent?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,657,849.PN.&OS=PN/7,657,849&RS=PN/7,657,849

"...detecting contact with the touch-sensitive display while the device is in a user-interface lock state; moving an unlock image along a predefined displayed path on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with the contact, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; transitioning the device to a user-interface unlock state if the detected contact corresponds to a predefined gesture; and maintaining the device in the user-interface lock state if the detected contact does not correspond to the predefined gesture."

Basically you touch an unlock image and slide it along the path shown on the screen to unlock. Yes, there is a physical device involved, but this is fundamentally a concept rather than an implementation of the concept.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[oxdas]

We can agree on one thing: your evidence is circumstantial. Societies have undergone many changes since the 1500's. You have only demonstrated that patents do not completely eliminate innovation (you have not yet offered any evidence that patents do not stifle innovation). I find it curious that the rise in innovation coincides with the Enlightenment, which ushered in many changes to society, in addition to patents. It begs the question, given all the other changes, would innovation have happened at the same rate without patent law? It is, of course, impossible to answer. My gut feeling here is the same as you, but I feel your arguments go beyond the evidence itself.

As for modern software, are you seriously arguing that software patents are the reason (or even an important factor) for the increase in software innovation over the last 40 years? I suspect that a much stronger case could be made for advances in hardware and the diffusion of software knowledge outside of the patent system. I think a stronger case could even be made that the relative dearth of software patents prior to the 1990's, made the current growth possible.

The greater concern is not that innovation would have progressed further without patents. The concern is that software patents, which are a very recent phenomena, have reached a critical mass to actually hinder innovation moving forward. Only hindsight will offer any real evidence into the merits of this concern, but anecdotal evidence abounds.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[VortexCortex]

And yet the economy continues and Apple is the wealthiest company in the world. People complain that the patent act stifles innovation or makes it so unprofitable to innovate that no one does it, but they have no evidence for this other than gut feelings, and it's contraindicated by the incredible innovations being made right now. If Google is to be believed, we'll have wearable heads-up displays by the end of the year. I mean, come on - that's freakin' science fiction right there.

Sooo... You admit that the people saying that patents stifle innovation have no evidence for their claims? Then you must also realise WHY we have no evidence, and only gut feelings. How do you like these apples:

And yet the human race and its society prospered, became the wealthiest species on the planet. People say that the having patents spurns innovation or makes it innovation worth investing in, but they have no evidence for this other than gut feelings, and it's contraindicated by the incredible innovations that put the human race at the top of the food chain without said patents!

You talk about science advancement and yet you use the LEAST of scientific arguments. If you're so damned sure that patents are helping us innovate then what would be wrong with ACTUALLY TESTING YOUR DAMN HYPOTHESIS? We don't have evidence either way because we've never actually done the experiment to find out. It's not as if we can't re-institute whatever crap laws we want. Let's GROW UP, and use the scientific method to determine if patents are harmful or helpful. Know what? The only way to collect the data we need is to ABOLISH PATENTS, at least for a while, and see WTF happens. Your arguments are RETARDING.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

How about Apple's "slide to unlock" patent?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,657,849.PN.&OS=PN/7,657,849&RS=PN/7,657,849

"...detecting contact with the touch-sensitive display while the device is in a user-interface lock state; moving an unlock image along a predefined displayed path on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with the contact, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; transitioning the device to a user-interface unlock state if the detected contact corresponds to a predefined gesture; and maintaining the device in the user-interface lock state if the detected contact does not correspond to the predefined gesture."

Basically you touch an unlock image and slide it along the path shown on the screen to unlock. Yes, there is a physical device involved, but this is fundamentally a concept rather than an implementation of the concept.

But, as you note, there's a physical device involved. It's not just a mathematical algorithm. You could not possibly infringe that claim with a pad of paper and a pen or by doing math in your own head.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

Your arguments are RETARDING.

I'm sorry, I came here for an argument, not abuse.

As a pro-tip, if you want people to debate you, you have to first not come off as a jackass.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[betterunixthanunix]

While it's possible to read these as humans, I think a more reasonable reading is that they're computers.

I do not agree with that; that is a common use case, but patents do not apply only to common use cases.

That one's even easier. Claim 1 recites a cryptosystem, which is illustrated in FIG. 2 including an ALU and RAM.

Fair enough, although this is still very vague and non-specific. It is basically saying that the patent covers any electronic computer that runs the algorithm -- which includes computers that have not even been invented yet. If you had no familiarity with computers, and I asked you to describe the machine that this patent covers, I doubt that you would be able to give an answer that even remotely resembles the sorts of machines that ECC is commonly use on.

Claim 1: "1. A method of generating in a digital data processor..."

Like I said, if you did not know what a computer is and you were asked to describe the machine that this patent covers, you would be unable to give a description that would be anything close to the machines that ECC is used on.

There you go. In all cases, pure math - or performing the steps in your head or on a pad of paper - would not be covered by the patent claims. Therefore, they can't be claiming pure math.

Except that they contain no specific descriptions of any machine, only vague and abstract references to machines, and the rest of the claims concern abstract mathematical operations. You might have a point if, say, any one of the patents mentioned even one real-world computer architecture in its claims. They do not go that far. As I originally said, these are nothing more than formal statements about computers; the core of the patent, and the patent itself, cover pure math.

Even if these patents named a specific computer that the algorithm is run on, the patents would still cover the mathematics of the algorithm and the machine would be irrelevant. These are not patents on a sequence of steps that a machine performs; if the same algorithms described in the patents were compiled two different ways i.e. two different sequences of instructions being carried out by the target computer, both programs would violate the patent. Some of those patents mention using the quadratic formula; yet there are infinitely many sequences of operations that a computer could perform to compute that formula, and so these patents do not cover any particular sequence. It is not possible to avoid violating these patents by, say, changing your compiler flags to produce different assembly language sequences. There is no specific sequence of operations covered, only the abstract math that certain sequences implement, and that is on any computer architecture.

We are also completely ignoring the original point about industrial processes being processes that concern the transformation of some physical material. At no point do any of these patents mention physical materials. These patents do not cover industrial processes by any stretch of the imagination; they cover software being run on any computer, not necessarily electronic computers, and including computers that have not been invented yet. Again, these patents cover the abstract algorithm; the mention of computer hardware is only formal.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Anonymous Coward]

See this review paper by economists arguing that patents are not economically optimal:

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/4/1252.full?sid=91782faf-70f0-4217-8ea7-7299ec8f761c

Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine. The economics of ideas and intellectual property PNAS 2005 102 (4) 1252-1256; published ahead of print January 18, 2005, doi:10.1073/pnas.0407730102

From their paper:

"Our own conclusion, based on empirical as well as theoretical considerations, is that on balance it would be best to eliminate patents and copyrights altogether. We have seen that markets for ideas are not so different from other markets. At one time, government grants of monopoly were widely used as a revenue extraction mechanism, and this is still true in the developing world today. Today we are skeptical about government monopolies. The government monopolies in Eastern Europe not only produced fewer and lower-quality goods at greater cost, but managed to do greater harm to the environment in the process. In developed economies, we have gradually replaced inefficient government grants of monopoly with more efficient mechanisms."

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[hairyfeet]

How do you explain MPEG-LA and H.26x then? that is ALL using math for compression or decompression of a file, yet they've managed to get over 2000+ patents filed on various parts of H.26x. if they were for how a chip can do these calcs efficiently then i'd agree, but as it is no matter how you compress or decompress a video you will most likely step in the H.26x minefield.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is chilling because it means I'm not supposed to see what other people are doing, even though we may be able to trivially work around it.

That completely negates one of the original justifications for allowing the monopoly of a patent. In return for a patent, others were supposed to be able to see what was patented and innovate around that (or at least avoid infringing).

Monopolies are bad for economies. They may be acceptable in some circumstances such as a natural monopoly like a bridge. They may also be accepted if society gains something from them such as innovation, but the way that software patents are being written and applied has the opposite affect. They are too common and too broad so that no one know what is covered and any firm doing software development know that they are at risk.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[hairyfeet]

Steam engines for one? look up the history of the steam engine and you'll see there is about a 25 year gap in progress and that was because of the steam engine patents. It even says in the wiki "He adopted the epicyclic sun and planet gear system suggested by an employee William Murdoch, only later reverting, once the patent rights had expired, to the more familiar crank seen on most engines today."

so there is one right there, and an old one at that. I'm sure that others can come up with newer ones but this is the first one that popped to my head that directly matched your challenge.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[hairyfeet]

Am I the ONLY one here who thinks "My CleanPC" is just the most perfect target EVAR for every Anon and troll here? I mean how delicious and moist would be the irony of MyCleanPC getting trashed with the whole page replaced by Goatse or animated GIFs of dogs taking a shit? it would be so damned funny! C'mon Anon guys, this bozo is practically bitch slapping you with his balls, get to smashing!

As for TFA the simple fact that they are letting them patent math, aka software, is simply crazy in and of itself. I mean how can that one screaming about how it MUST be a 'process' explain the H.26x patents? What is compression and decompression but math? The whole system has gotten so nasty no damned wonder more and more are simply doing business in China, at least there one can come up with something without tap-dancing through a patent minefield.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

How do you explain MPEG-LA and H.26x then?

They're video compression algorithms. I thought we were talking about patents.

that is ALL using math for compression or decompression of a file, yet they've managed to get over 2000+ patents filed on various parts of H.26x. if they were for how a chip can do these calcs efficiently then i'd agree, but as it is no matter how you compress or decompress a video you will most likely step in the H.26x minefield.

So you agree that the base ideas would be patentable if they were embodied in a hardware chip? Then how is that different from embodied in software and executed by a hardware chip?

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[jmcvetta]

Every dollar spent vying for monopoly control of an idea, is a dollar not spent creating new ideas. The chilling effect of Intellectual Serfdom laws - felt keenly by those who are "skilled in the art" of creating software, as opposed to the art of litigation - is indeed difficult to quantify. However some the direct financial cost of the patent regime, and its cancerous growth rate in recent years, are documented in this nicely-produced infographic.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[JesseMcDonald]

A patent on a computer running an algorithm explicitly does not cover performing the algorithm in your head, on a pad of paper, inherently when you do some other function, etc. It is quite distinguishable.

What is the significant difference between evaluating an algorithm in your head, and doing the same thing with computer assistance, which would justify a patent? What is the novel, non-obvious change in the state of the art which such a patent would document? We agree that it's not the algorithm, or the computer; what's left?

More specifically, what is it about "evaluate this algorithm with a computer" which would make it patentable, which would not also apply to "evaluate this algorithm with pencil and paper"?

I can invent a new automobile transmission, and the fact that I wasn't the one who invented the automobile is irrelevant. You've created a new rule whereby each industry gets one patent by the founder of that industry, and any improvements in that industry are forever unpatentable because they incorporate something not invented by the applicant.

This is an obvious straw-man argument. There is no new rule prohibiting patents which build on prior patents. The only rule being applied here, which is hardly new, is that the patent must add something to the state of the art which is both novel and non-obvious. The automobile in your example is not novel, but your transmission is presumably both novel and non-obvious. The patent would cover just the transmission, not the automobile.

On the other hand, if you tried to get a patent on combining an existing transmission with an existing automobile design, I would expect such an application to be summarily rejected unless there was something both novel and non-obvious about the concept or method of combining the two. This is where software patents fail. You have two pre-existing components, the algorithm and the general-purpose computer. The patent application only covers combining these two existing elements together in the most obvious way possible, as running algorithms is the sole purpose of a computer.

Can you do the same and show that the software industry has stagnated because of patent disputes?

Actually, yes. For one obvious example, just look at the areas where interoperability has suffered due to Microsoft's FAT filesystem patents, or patents on media codecs, or lossless compression algorithms, or rendering techniques. Software patents are also inherently incompatible with free and open-source software; any license fee whatsoever will block legal free software development in that area. Driving people to reinvent the wheel, often in an inferior way, isn't progress. Start-ups and other small for-profit organizations have a similar problem; they don't have the portfolio necessary to enter into the standard cross-licensing agreements, or the financial resources for drawn-out patent fights in the courts. Their only real option is to settle for being bought out (under duress) by an larger incumbent.

It's obvious that patents, and especially software patents, impose costs and place roadblocks in the way of innovation. It is hoped, but not proven (and not for lack of trying), that the incentive of a state-backed monopoly is enough to compensate for this. What we lack is an alternate world to compare against, one with the same initial conditions but without patents.

If Google Glasses makes it to market, then you can publicly post a retraction statement that patents don't stifle innovation. Sounds good? ... Of course you won't agree to that...

Exactly, because no retraction would be justified. That a particular product eventually makes it to market does not imply that patents do not stifle innovation—which is not the same as saying that no innovation can occur, only that the patents impede innovation rather than contributing to it. To decide that we

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

Every dollar spent vying for monopoly control of an idea, is a dollar not spent creating new ideas. The chilling effect of Intellectual Serfdom laws - felt keenly by those who are "skilled in the art" of creating software, as opposed to the art of litigation - is indeed difficult to quantify. However some the direct financial cost of the patent regime, and its cancerous growth rate in recent years, are documented in this nicely-produced infographic.

It's true, patent licensing and litigation is expensive. You know what's also expensive - product liability. Or medical malpractice. In fact, any time someone loses a lawsuit, it's expensive... and that money could be spent creating new ideas instead. Clearly, what we need to do is abolish the entire court system, right?

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[jmcvetta]

It's true, patent licensing and litigation is expensive. You know what's also expensive - product liability. Or medical malpractice. In fact, any time someone loses a lawsuit, it's expensive... and that money could be spent creating new ideas instead. Clearly, what we need to do is abolish the entire court system, right?

Just as you say, the legal system is expensive overhead. Money spent on lawyers is obviously no longer available for more productive uses.

Few people, however, would agree with your straw man solution of abolishing the entire court system. Most folks who are opposed to idea monopolies advocate fundamental reform of the legal system. The solution is fewer & less invasive laws, not anarchy.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Theaetetus]

What is the significant difference between evaluating an algorithm in your head, and doing the same thing with computer assistance, which would justify a patent? What is the novel, non-obvious change in the state of the art which such a patent would document?

You're confusing two different things here. When a patent claims "[super novel and non-obvious technique] performed by a computer," it's not saying that the computer is the point of novelty... and there's also nothing that requires every element of a claim to be independently novel and nonobvious. Hell, if that were true, you could never claim an improvement: "A better mousetrap, comprising..." and someone would jump up and say "mousetraps aren't new!" Similarly, you could create a brand new chemical composition or drug, never before seen in nature, and someone would jump up and say "that's just made of basic elements like hydrogen! It's not new!"

Additionally, you're also confusing two different statutes. 35 USC 102 and 103 are the ones that say patents have to be novel and nonobvious. 35 USC 101 - what we're talking about - is the one that says that even a novel, nonobvious idea is unpatentable if it's not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.

We agree that it's not the algorithm, or the computer; what's left?

Again, there's two different requirements here. The computer makes it patent-eligible. The novel, nonobvious algorithm makes it, well, novel and nonobvious.

More specifically, what is it about "evaluate this algorithm with a computer" which would make it patentable, which would not also apply to "evaluate this algorithm with pencil and paper"?

And now you've moved the goalposts back - the computer. Because it's tied to a computer, it's patent-eligible. The pencil and paper version is not patent-eligible, even if it's the most novel and non-obvious algorithm ever invented.

I can invent a new automobile transmission, and the fact that I wasn't the one who invented the automobile is irrelevant. You've created a new rule whereby each industry gets one patent by the founder of that industry, and any improvements in that industry are forever unpatentable because they incorporate something not invented by the applicant.

This is an obvious straw-man argument. There is no new rule prohibiting patents which build on prior patents.

Then why did you bring up this: "The general-purpose computer was not invented by the applicant" (emphasis in original). I agree with your new statement here - there is no rule that that's a requirement, so it's irrelevant that the computer was not invented by the applicant.

The only rule being applied here, which is hardly new, is that the patent must add something to the state of the art which is both novel and non-obvious. The automobile in your example is not novel, but your transmission is presumably both novel and non-obvious.

Exactly.

The patent would cover just the transmission, not the automobile.

Depends on the claim. It could also cover an automobile including the transmission.

On the other hand, if you tried to get a patent on combining an existing transmission with an existing automobile design, I would expect such an application to be summarily rejected unless there was something both novel and non-obvious about the concept or method of combining the two.

Agreed.

This is where software patents fail. You have two pre-existing components, the algorithm and the general-purpose computer. The patent application only covers combining these two existing elements together in the most obvious way possible, as running algorithms is the sole purpose of a computer.

Except that the algorithm is not necessarily pre-existing

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I agree, abstract processes - a subset of "processes" - are not patentable.

...patents on pure software (which, I may add, don't exist)...

The patent for the Hilbert-Huang transform is a patent on a mathematical procedure; note that the patent is considered applicable to use on a general computing device. This example makes it a bit more obvious to non-programmers that it is indeed math (as is all software, but that's not apparent to most people) and patented.

A patent on a computer running an algorithm explicitly does not cover performing the algorithm in your head, on a pad of paper, inherently when you do some other function, etc. It is quite distinguishable.

I contend that this distinction is artificial. An algorithm running on a generic computer does not transform a physical substance or object any more than running it in your head does. The general computer on which some algorithm is run may have hardware outputs which actuate various industrial controls, but that is a different matter, and part of a separate (perhaps patentable) process.

Don't even get me started on "business process" patents...

- T

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[chrismcb]

That is a new law.

The original constitution states "physical inventions".

The "original" constitution? What does that mean? Are we using a different one?
As far as I know the Constitution says:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

It doesn't say "physical inventions" nor "physical science."
Although I do agree that ideas aren't patentable. If it were, pretty much every invention would be patented by sci fi writers.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[chrismcb]

trollolololololol you dont want to debate, you want to argue. If you cant understand how the current patent situation can stifle innovation, then you arent paying attention. By their very nature, patents restrict, not enable.

Patents restrict someone else from using your invention without your permission (for a limited time)
But that doesn't necessarily mean innovation has stifled. Innovation has flourished, for example we have .png because of patents.
But what would NOT have been invented if patents didn't exist.
I don't understand how "the current patent situation" (which really hasn't changed much) can stifle innovation. Please tell us.
I will agree with you, patents are for a SOCIETAL benefit. The theory is a smart person who invents, will invent more. If he can make money off his first invention, he might be able to spend time to come up with a second (third, etc) invention which will benefit Society.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[chrismcb]

So he innovated, by coming up with another way to do something. Probably not as good as the patented batter way... But I fail to see how this "stifled" innovation. Perhaps you expect by now that we would have had superior steam engines? But because of patents, we don't?
No system is perfect. You can find flaws in any system, that doesn't mean it is the wrong system to use.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[chrismcb]

Can you do the same and show that the software industry has stagnated because of patent disputes?

Actually, yes. For one obvious example, just look at the areas where interoperability has suffered due to Microsoft's FAT filesystem patents, or patents on media codecs, or lossless compression algorithms, or rendering techniques. Software patents are also inherently incompatible with free and open-source software; any license fee whatsoever will block legal free software development in that area. Driving people to reinvent the wheel, often in an inferior way, isn't progress. >

I want to start by saying I don't really believe in Software Patents. One is that MOST of them aren't novel. Second is that, because the code is closed source, it is difficult to tell what the actual patent is and whether you are violating it.
I'm not sure what your argument about Open-Source has to do with anything. The fact is an Open Source author wants to use closed source is the issue, not whether that closed source is patented or not.
But because you refuse to pay the inventor so you can use his invention doesn't mean progress has been stifled. Sometimes new and better ways are found, like .png. I will agree it is hard to innovate on the new concept, when the inventor won't give you permission. But that doesn't mean all innovation is stifled.
The question is, how much would NOT be invented if there wasn't patent protection? Well software has copyright protection, so we'd probably still get as much new software.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Anonymous Coward]

The second issue is math should not be patentable because they are laws of nature and not manmade. Computer algorithms are just this and a process is simply math.

You're right, and that's why computer algorithms are not patentable by themselves. Instead, they must be explicitly tied to a machine or performed by a machine, because machines are not laws of nature, nor are they man-made.

Tied to any machine, as current software patents are understood? That is akin to patenting the software itself. It's even more general, since it doesn't patent only a specific implementation of the software.

I think those patent laws are all outdated. Back when they were written, there was no way to separate the machine itself from the action it performed. Even industrial processes were quite detailled to the point where there wasn't a myriad of ways to achieve them. Now, with software, machine and function is separate. Patenting a process embodied as software is, thus, patenting function.

The laws have to be revised to effectively disallow the patenting of function, which is what 95% of every software patent out there does, and is already considered unpatentable. It's just that patent examiners lack the tools to be able to tell when a software patent is patenting function (as in, it's too broad) or a specific implementation of it (as in the case of the ECC patent, which is pure math applied to secure communication in a really non-trivial way).

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Sabriel]

So basically adding "on a computer" makes pure math patentable? That's insane.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Sabriel]

As a third party, I suggest you also provide your evidence that patents benefit more than they stifle. After all, if you can't support your conclusion with facts, then, while it may be true, you'll never convince a reasonable person.

And this is part of the problem. We've only access to the one trouser leg of time, where patents exist and are pretty much systemic. So figuring out to the last counted bean whether the absence of patents would have led to a better standard of living is, to use a technical term, bloody hard.

But we can reason out a few things. Patents are a negative grant. If I have a patent, and you independently come up with the same idea, you can't profit from the sweat of your own brow without my permission. Winner takes all, and screw the rest of you. How is that not stifling?

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[JesseMcDonald]

I'm not sure what your argument about Open-Source has to do with anything. The fact is an Open Source author wants to use closed source is the issue, not whether that closed source is patented or not.

Closed source code isn't even involved here. The point is that completely open source code is blocked by the patent.

But because you refuse to pay the inventor so you can use his invention doesn't mean progress has been stifled. Sometimes new and better ways are found, like .png.

First, it's not a matter of "refusing" to pay. The requirement to pay is impossible to comply with while remaining compliant with the open source license. If others can't use or modify the software with your changes without paying a license fee, you can't incorporate those changes into an open source project.

Second, if those changes would have enhanced the state of the art—and being open source, they are necessarily available to the public—and were independently discovered, not based on the patent or related publications, then innovation has clearly been stifled. Publication as part of an open-source project would have accomplished everything the patent is supposed to do, without the cost of a monopoly. If the changes were based on the patent, then there is a question of how long it would have taken for someone else to come up with an equivalent algorithm in the absence of the patent. Obviously I think it would have been developed anyway, due simply to the demand for the algorithm itself (without which the patent is also worthless) and regardless of the limited incentive of a patent monopoly, but I'm willing to grant that there is room for debate.

Finally, I think you're promoting the Broken Window fallacy by saying that it's good to be forced to reinvent someone to circumvent a patent. Yes, the final result was better that .gif—but what might .gif turned into if others could have improved on it directly, rather than starting over from scratch? Quite a lot of effect was spent on ways to compress images without infringing on the .gif patent, not to mention reimplementing all the other features already in .gif like transparency and animation, and then pushing support for the new formats into new versions of every image-handling program. That effort could have been directed toward improving on the original format, or working on other software, if not for the patent. For that matter, just look at how long it took to get to the point where you could assume decent .png support. (Are we even there yet? Which commonly-supported raster format handles both transparency and animation?)

The question is, how much would NOT be invented if there wasn't patent protection?

For me the question is actually how anyone can possibly justify the aggression necessary to enforce a patent monopoly, regardless of the costs or benefits of granting one. However, we're talking hypotheticals here.

The flip side of your question is, how much is NOT invented today because of patent protection? You have to consider both, and both are ultimately undecidable without an alternate reality to compare against. I have yet to see a study, however, which could safely conclude that patents do anything to promote innovation. Even working within the low standards of modern politics, to justify infringing on the property rights of everyone by telling them they can't implement a patented process or device (even if they were completely unaware of it and invented the same thing independently), I would expect some sort of solid evidence that the program is actually working.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Anonymous Coward]

We agree that it's not the algorithm, or the computer; what's left?

Again, there's two different requirements here. The computer makes it patent-eligible. The novel, nonobvious algorithm makes it, well, novel and nonobvious.

More specifically, what is it about "evaluate this algorithm with a computer" which would make it patentable, which would not also apply to "evaluate this algorithm with pencil and paper"?

And now you've moved the goalposts back - the computer. Because it's tied to a computer, it's patent-eligible. The pencil and paper version is not patent-eligible, even if it's the most novel and non-obvious algorithm ever invented.

Define "tied to a computer". As far as I can see, it's not "tied" to anything. The computer is an irrelevant detail brushed against in vague remote passing, it's existence is inconsequential and only matters in order to tick the "mentions something that might possibly be construed as a possibly physical device which may or may not exist" checkbox.

These patents aren't "how to do this complex operation on a computer", they're "here is this interesting bit of math, we think it might possibly be useful in a computer program". That is completely backwards.

The point of contention is that a patent which says "do this math on something which resembles a computer" is no better than "carry out this action on planet Earth", sure "planet Earth" is smaller than "anywhere in the Universe" but it is still an idiotically broad statement.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[JesseMcDonald]

You're confusing two different things here. When a patent claims "[super novel and non-obvious technique] performed by a computer," it's not saying that the computer is the point of novelty... and there's also nothing that requires every element of a claim to be independently novel and nonobvious.

The straw-man arguments are getting a bit ridiculous here, not to mention repetitive. I never said that every element had to be both novel and non-obvious, just that some element had to be. If the patent consists of one thing (the algorithm) which is non-obvious but not novel—a law of nature—plus something else which is novel ("on a computer") but obvious, then the patent shouldn't be granted.

Additionally, you're also confusing two different statutes. 35 USC 102 and 103 are the ones that say patents have to be novel and nonobvious. 35 USC 101 - what we're talking about - is the one that says that even a novel, nonobvious idea is unpatentable if it's not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.

I'm not confusing the issues, I'm saying that software patents should be rejected for both reasons. Subject matter aside, they add nothing to the state of the art which is both novel and non-obvious. From a subject matter P.O.V., irrelevancies relating to run on a computer vs. run in your head aside, algorithms are math, and math is not a patentable subject matter.

The pro-software patent camp is the group confusing the issue, by trying to claim that the subject matter restriction doesn't apply simply because you use a computer to assist you with the math.

Because it's tied to a computer, it's patent-eligible. The pencil and paper version is not patent-eligible, even if it's the most novel and non-obvious algorithm ever invented.

We already know that this is your position. The question is: Why? What's so different about using a computer for assistance, rather than pencil and paper?

... look at the areas where interoperability has suffered due to Microsoft's FAT filesystem patents, or patents on media codecs, or lossless compression algorithms, or rendering techniques.

[sarcasm]It's true. My FAT-formatted USB stick won't run at all on my Mac. And I still have to view everything in vector graphics since rendering techniques are patented.[/sarcasm]

Sorry, do you have any concrete examples of this?

LMGTFY: Harm to standards and compatibility, Free software projects harmed by software patents

As I already pointed out, patents don't need to completely block something in order to be stifling innovation or otherwise causing harm, they just need to be making it more costly than it otherwise would be.

On the contrary, the greater variety of wheels we have - wheels that will enter the public domain in a relatively short time - greatly increases the rate of progress.

Nonsense. We don't benefit from people driving around with hexagonal wheels for the sole reason that someone holds a patent on the round version. If there is a variation which is actually better, it will be invented and used for that reason and not just because someone holds a patent on an inferior version. Otherwise, we're better off without the workarounds. To add insult to injury, at the pace of the technology industry that "relatively short time" is generally much longer than it takes for the subject of the patent to become obsolete.

Software patents are also inherently incompatible with free and open-source software; any license fee whatsoever will block legal free software development in that area.

I fail to see how that's an argument for or against them - they're incompatible with the idea

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to a car analogy?

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, I'm simply asking for your evidence that patents stifle more than they benefit.

Patents by their very nature restrict the usage of ideas. They restrict the freedom to innovate and the ability to build on the work of others. That alone, not to mention anything else, is proof that patents are harmful.

The onus is on you, not anybody else, to prove that the benefit of patents outweigh this cost and that patents are a net benefit in every arbitrary area that they are applied.

If you aren't willing to do the above then you are just patent lawyer trying to feather his own nest and should be ignored. The fact that the vast majority of practicing programmers, not lawyers, feel that software patents are bogus is strong evidence for this.

So please, put up or shut up. So far all you've done is engage in various logical fallacies and propaganda tricks in failing to prove your point of view.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[cundare]

Heh, Theaetetus, you have *got* to be a patent attorney. I say this because: i) Unlike most posters here, you actually know how the patent system works; and ii) Your comments have the precision, lack of ambiguity, lucidity, and focus of a well-written patent application.

Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google is to be believed, we'll have wearable heads-up displays by the end of the year. I mean, come on - that's freakin' science fiction right there.

Why wait for Google? Epson has one now - http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Moverio/Home.do

A step in the right direction ...

[perpenso]

Saying "let's think about this a little more" is a step in the right direction.

Re:A step in the right direction ...

[Nerdfest]

Eliminating software patents completely then re-instating any provisions that are still required after some thought would more quickly get to a working solution. Taking a small step towards a goal that you are very far from is not much on an improvement, and I think most people (who are not lawyers) know that the goal is much closer to "no software patents" than it is to "you can patent the idea for any software".

DVD trailers

[sunderland56]

If Ultramercial has a patent covering forced-viewing advertising, doesn't that cover virtually every DVD made?

Re:DVD trailers

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It's not forced viewing. It's an option to watch either a relatively long commercial prior to an episode or get interrupted to watch a commercial a few times during the show.

Re:DVD trailers

[FirstOne]

More like every DVD player that's been manufactured(1995 onward). It's the programming for user operation prohibition flag, inside the player, (rom/pc software), that prevents the skipping of the FBI warning/commercial previews prior to viewing the content.

Re:DVD trailers

[BronsCon]

Only if you're watching them on a computer, apparently.

Re:DVD trailers

[dyingtolive]

I just heard the sound of a million trolls trying to patent "...but on a phone" at once.

Re:DVD trailers

[Svartalf]

Can we hear them equally suddenly silenced? >:-D

Isn't sponsored advertising prior art?

[avgjoe62]

Isn't the concept of an advertisement running before you see content as old as radio and TV? Didn't I have to watch Timex commercials to see the TV shows they sponsored?

I think this is just another example of "Same old stuff, but now on the Interwebs!"

Unless there is an actual physical product. patents are inappropriate. Copyright a presentation of an idea, but patenting a thought is a path to policing thought... and wasting time having the courts arbitrate such.

Re:Isn't sponsored advertising prior art?

[the eric conspiracy]

That's horse manure. Patents have always covered non-physical inventions, such as improved chemical processes. In fact the very first US Patent issued was a improved process for the manufacture of potash. Which comes from horse manure.

What has to be gotten rid of is software and business process patents. That's what is gumming up the works.

Re:Isn't sponsored advertising prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent isn't about advertising - it is about *enforced* advertising.

You could get up during the Timex commercial and go get a beer. This is about a large guy in your living room forcing you to watch.

Re:Isn't sponsored advertising prior art?

[avgjoe62]

I could check my email in another tab for fifteen or thirty seconds while the advertising plays. Maybe I should patent this - "A Method for Avoiding Advertisements Placed at the Start of Internet Videos"

Re:Isn't sponsored advertising prior art?

[avgjoe62]

There is a product there -chemicals or potash. You improved a method for creating a physical thing, not expressed an idea on how to put a thought in someone's head. An expression of an idea can be copyrighted - a process that leads to a product can be patented.

Re:Isn't sponsored advertising prior art?

[psxndc]

No, that is not what the patent is about.

It's about offering the content for sale AND offering it for free, but you only get it for free if you watch an ad first.

Re:Isn't sponsored advertising prior art?

[avgjoe62]

It's about offering the content for sale AND offering it for free, but you only get it for free if you watch an ad first.

You mean like the House or Firefly boxed DVD sets?

Re:Isn't sponsored advertising prior art?

[psxndc]

Could you be a little more specific? Is there a place you can buy them and get them for free, but to get them for free you have to watch an ad first?

The patent is directed to a website that sells things.

And the patent goes back to 2000.

Re:Isn't sponsored advertising prior art?

[avgjoe62]

Turn your TV on and you can still watch reruns of House and Firefly, but you do have to put up with commercials. Why, I can even record them to my VCR and/or DVR, but the commercials are still in there.

If I go and buy the DVDs (or, twelve years ago, the VHS) I get to see them commercial free.

So, what we have is a way I can watch them for free, but I have to watch a commercial too or I can watch them without commercials if I buy it. The only difference with the patent is that now we did it on a website! Such innovation!

Re:Isn't sponsored advertising prior art?

[psxndc]

That sounds like a pain in the ass. I agree: Solving that problem 12 years does sound like innovation. Oh, I see. You're the type that thinks innovation has to be lightbulb-level innovation. Well, agree to disagree.

Re:Guess whose bootysnap I'm gonna violate?

[clickclickdrone]

You do realise that this constant spamming of MyCleanPC at your target audience will pretty much guarantee that not only will none of us buy it, but we'll tell other people you're Satan's Spawn and not to go near your product or company ever? Just Saying...

You can sue the government, right?

[Rogerborg]

Then we need people to sue the USPTO. I mean big, honking, megabucks style, at a bare minimum to get back their fees for defending against utter abominations like this ludicrous "invention".

Yes, I know that will come out of the public purse and into the pockets of - FSM help me - lawyers, but what other option is there?

Re:You can sue the government, right?

[Billly Gates]

To lobby of course.

America Invents changed the patent law to include abstract ideas and not just physical inventions. They can copyright them too and that will make your idea last 170 years which Disney needed to protect Mickey Mouse.

Or just outsource to India where you do not have this problem. The engineers in the States can flip burgers and serve coffee instead.

Re:You can sue the government, right?

[medv4380]

The USPTO is the victim here. If it doesn't approve a patent it goes into appeal until it does. So they are left with approve a patent, and clog up the legal system and themselves, or reject a patent and clog up the legal system and themselves. The system needs an overhaul.

Re:You can sue the government, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that will come out of the public purse

Make the employees responsible along with every manager above them. They should have to pay the costs. Bankrupt them, I don't care.

We need some new rules stating that a person can't hide behind "I was told to". If it's found to be immoral/unethical, then the person doing it should be held responsible. If said person can point a finger at a superior, then the superior takes more of the fault, but not all of it.

We need people to start taking responsibility for their actions.

If you think you're being told to do something "not nice", they should have a form that can be submitted to your superiors of you stating that you not believe what you're doing is "right". Everyone signs off, you get a copy, they keep a copy. If shit hits the fan, then you're "safe".

This would make "being a jerk" expensive to corps as it would cause a crap ton of paper-work.

Re:You can sue the government, right?

[Svartormr]

We need some new rules stating that a person can't hide behind "I was told to". If it's found to be immoral/unethical, then the person doing it should be held responsible. If said person can point a finger at a superior, then the superior takes more of the fault, but not all of it.

I thought the "I was following orders" defence got trashed in the Nuremburg Trials.

Re:You can sue the government, right?

[GrumpySteen]

That's easy to solve, at least: Use the number of appeals as an exponent of a base cost to file the appeal. Say the first appeal costs $100. The second appeal would cost $1,000, third would be $10,000, fourth would be $100,000 and so on.

Re:You can sue the government, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the "I was following orders" defence got trashed in the Nuremburg Trials.

That’s only because the people trying to use it then were on the losing side.

If you are on the winning side, it is a completely exculpatory defence.
 

Re:Windows 8 has mandatory flash built in

[BronsCon]

Can someone hand me a phone? I need to make a call

/me dials the phone

Hello, Bullshit?

Why the fuck would MS integrate Adobe's competitor to their own Silverlight platform into their own OS? Get off the crack.

Re:Windows 8 has mandatory flash built in

[John Courtland]

looks like you're both retarded
http://www.neowin.net/news/former-microsoft-pm-silverlight-is-dead

Re:Windows 8 has mandatory flash built in

[ColdWetDog]

Reality is often weirder than anything we can dream up.

Welcome to the crazy house

Re:Windows 8 has mandatory flash built in

[BronsCon]

Netflix is keeping it alive, apparently.

Re:Guess whose bootysnap I'm gonna violate?

[mcgrew]

I doubt he'll see your response, as he's not here to read or comment, just to spam. He probably has a bot scraping the net for places to put his spam that most likely is all automated.

Now I have to look for the parodies, some of them are hilarious.

Re:Windows 8 has mandatory flash built in

[Anonymous Coward]

There are ads here?

Re:Guess whose bootysnap I'm gonna violate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck this asshole. Use gamemaker motherfuckers! It now cums with a custom hosts file option.

Never in a million years...

[flibbidyfloo]

I never thought I'd agree with WildTangent on something. They have been the bane of freelance PC support techs for a long time and I wish they would just shrivel up and die. But I guess self-interest and politics can make strange bedfellows.

running on a computer is still pure math

[Chirs]

If the only input is data and the only output is data (rather than running a motor controller or servo or something) then I would argue that we're talking about an algorithm, i.e. pure math.

The fact that it runs on a computer is beside the point, you could in theory do it with pen and paper or in your head.

Re:running on a computer is still pure math

[Theaetetus]

If the only input is data and the only output is data (rather than running a motor controller or servo or something) then I would argue that we're talking about an algorithm, i.e. pure math.

The fact that it runs on a computer is beside the point, you could in theory do it with pen and paper or in your head.

On the contrary, if the patent claims require a computing device, then you cannot, by definition, do it in your head. You could perform the same algorithm, but you wouldn't infringe the patent - hence the patent isn't claiming the algorithm.

Re:Guess whose bootysnap I'm gonna violate?

[steveg]

Don't think they care if anyone here buys it. They're engaging in "Search Engine Optimization" -- enough links and they hope to game their search results to move higher in Google's listing.

might be reading too much into it

[Trepidity]

This is a fairly common procedural follow-up to a Supreme Court ruling that might have implications for other cases. The situation is roughly like this:

1. Cases A, B, and C, on related but not identical subjects, file for Supreme Court review of a lower-court decision.

2. The Supreme Court hears A, and issues a significant new ruling. This ruling might have implications for B and C, but they weren't considered by the Court, because the Court only heard A.

3. Now the question is, what should the Supreme Court do with B and C, whose appeals are still pending? They could accept the cases for hearing and decide them, too. If they were on exactly the same issue as A, the Court could've consolidated A/B/C and issued one ruling. But in the more common case where they have potential but not 100% overlap, the Supreme Court doesn't usually want to hear all three cases. Instead they pick a representative one, in this case A, and issue a ruling. But if A overlaps with B/C, it could lead to an injustice if they just reject the B/C appeals.

4. There is basically a new question: in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in A, are the lower-court decisions in B and C still correct, or should they be modified?

5. The principle is that the lower courts are supposed to look at such questions first, so the Supreme Court orders that lower courts reconsider cases B and C in light of the recent opinion in A. It's up to the lower courts then to look into whether their original decisions should now be modified. Then once they issue a new ruling, this can be appealed to the Supreme Court again.

Re:Guess whose bootysnap I'm gonna violate?

[Plunky]

thats not how it works.. if he spams here, on a highly google-ranked site then his messages will start to appear high up in search rankings. Then if you search for that product name, you will see messages in the search results where the extract on display consists wholly of "and ${product} did a really fantastic job at ${action}!!!" and there will be pages of it, so people who are ignorant will see that and assume it is legit. Thats why it is important to down-moderate any spam here, because I suppose -1 comments don't get crawled by googlebot. They are not advertising to us, they are using our good reputation to bolster themselves in the search results.. IMO slashdot should implement filtering to block that stuff from being posted, so that the moderation can go back to being about the comments (maybe thats what those flags are for, I dunno)

Re:Windows 8 has mandatory flash built in

[mcgrew]

Why the fuck would MS integrate Adobe's competitor to their own Silverlight platform into their own OS?

Because almost every radio station and TV stream uses Flash. To not have Flash on a computer severely cripples its web browsing. If Windows stopped supporting Flash, you'd see a hell of a lot of people either buying a Mac or installing Linux. In short, it would cost them tons in sales.

Class 725

[ProfBooty]

I wonder why this application was not initially examined in class 725, but was instead searched only in business methods class 705?

Re:Windows 8 has mandatory flash built in

[BronsCon]

This isn't about supporting or not supporting. It's not even about including or bundling... Why the fuck would they INTEGRATE it?

OSX and Linux both support Flash (other way around, actually). Neither of them integrate it.

You misread useful art

[Anonymous Coward]

Business process or software patent or even math are not considered in the original meaning useful art, but rather the amelioration of an industrial or artisanal process. The extension to business process (not involving the industrial or artisanal processes) such as we see today is not something which was meant back in the 18th or even 19th century.

Stop Patents

[pubwvj]

Time to dump the entire patent system.

Everything is obvious and patents don't make them more so. Unfortunately patent clerks are granting patents on obvious stuff because they're rushed and unimaginative.

Ideas are a dime a dozen. It is the implementations that matter. Eliminate the patent system and let everyone compete in the open market.

If patents were eliminated then people, e.g., corporations which are made of people, would have to move on things and not squat. It would also kill the trolls.

Disclosure: I'm an inventor and manufacturer with many things I could have patented but don't because I do not agree with the idea that ideas should be proprietary and exclusive.

Re:Guess whose bootysnap I'm gonna violate?

[RenderSeven]

No I like their tactics and we should all help MyCleanPC, since MyCleanPC needs better rankings so that MyCleanPC users can find more information about MyCleanPC and interact with others that want to use MyCleanPC. "MyCleanPC", they will say, "is so kool I want more stuff just like MyCleanPC!". Three cheers for MyCleanPC, MyCleanPC, MyCleanPC!!!

I for one welcome our new search engine robot overlords!

Re:Windows 8 has mandatory flash built in

[mcgrew]

Why the fuck would they INTEGRATE it?

Hell if I know, except that they're Microsoft and very little they do makes sense to me, except for the user-hostile things that make them more money, like making it difficult to make a Windows network work without the most expensive copy of Windows they have on one of the machines. Ironically, Linux on one of them makes it at least possible.

looking for a smackdown

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly, it seems like this and similar patent cases are just begging to be shot down; while it doesn't appear that any of us really knows what an "abstract idea" is exactly, it's increasingly clear to numerous observers that tying a process to the internet should not necessarily transform an abstract process into a patentable invention.