Software Patents Are Crumbling, Thanks To the Supreme Court

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Software Patents Are Crumbling, Thanks To the Supreme Court

Posted by Soulskill on Friday September 12, 2014 @07:10AM from the system-and-method-for-smacking-trolls dept.

walterbyrd writes: In June, when the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a software patent, many in the tech industry hoped it would be the beginning of sweeping changes to how the patent system handles software. Just a few months later, lower courts are making it happen. Quoting Vox: "By my count there have been 10 court rulings on the patentability of software since the Supreme Court's decision — including six that were decided this month. Every single one of them has led to the patent being invalidated. This doesn't necessarily mean that all software patents are in danger — these are mostly patents that are particularly vulnerable to challenge under the new Alice precedent. But it does mean that the pendulum of patent law is now clearly swinging in an anti-patent direction. Every time a patent gets invalidated, it strengthens the bargaining position of every defendant facing a lawsuit from a patent troll." Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports on alleged corruption in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

118 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 07:12 · Score: 2, Funny

...but it decreases the incentive for people to make innovative software
1. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 07:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Nope
  GNOME 3 is very innovative, and is built with no patent incentives.
2. Re:Double-edged sword by Himmy32 · 2014-09-12 07:20 · Score: 2
  
  It decreases the incentive for some people. There are plenty of counterexamples of unpatented innovative software. I know I know, don't feed the trolls.
3. Re:Double-edged sword by pubwvj · 2014-09-12 07:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No, not at all. People were making innovative software long, long before software was patented. It didn't used to be that patents were applied to software. Patenting of software is a relatively new thing and should not be done. Hopefully we'll see the end of it. The entire patent system is abused and abusive. Time to scrap it and reset.
4. Re:Double-edged sword by mi · 2014-09-12 07:23 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  GNOME 3 is very innovative, and is built with no patent incentives.
  Grandparent didn't say, the incentives are eliminated by the ruling. Only that there are fewer now... Still enough for GNOME 3 to be developed, obviously, but, possibly, not as well as it could be.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
5. Re:Double-edged sword by i+kan+reed · 2014-09-12 07:25 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Please.
  The intellectually hard work of software isn't the idea. It's almost entirely within the coding.
6. Re:Double-edged sword by rgmoore · 2014-09-12 07:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It doesn't decrease the incentive to produce software nearly as much as the threat of being sued for violating patents that never should have been granted. There's plenty of software out there that attracts customers by being good and doesn't need the threat of patents to succeed.
  
  --
  There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
7. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  good joke.... actually a great joke, since exactly the opposite is true
8. Re:Double-edged sword by AuMatar · 2014-09-12 07:27 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  No, it increases it. There's a half dozen ideas I have on the drawing board that I could never touch, because I know it comes too close to filed patents on a dozen issues and I could never protect myself in court. This makes it easier to explore these ideas. If anything, this will lead to more pushing of the boundaries and combining of good ideas to make great software, and fewer people sticking to safe ideas because there's no patent issues.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
9. Re:Double-edged sword by blackomegax · 2014-09-12 07:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The people it decreases incentive for, are people I don't want making software in the first place. Good riddance. We can have real innovation now.
10. Re:Double-edged sword by KiloByte · 2014-09-12 07:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, GNOME3 is a counterexample. I wish Microsoft held a patent on obnoxious tabletized UIs.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
11. Re:Double-edged sword by Mr+D+from+63 · 2014-09-12 07:33 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  IMO, you should be able to patent processes that are based on new technological development, but not the logic/flowpath of the process. Software itself should fall under copyright law.
12. Re:Double-edged sword by gnupun · 2014-09-12 07:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The intellectually hard work of software isn't the idea. It's almost entirely within the coding.
  That would be true if you could come up with good ideas (not bad or average ones) easily and cheaply, but you can't. You can work as hard as you want, but there's no guarantee you will come up with a good idea.
  With coding, you (and a million other programmers) can work hard to come up with the code. Therefore original ideas are more valuable than the code implementing it. The software world is absolutely saturated multiple implementations of a few valuable ideas, with additional, secondary ideas added to improve the product from pre-existing products.
13. Re:Double-edged sword by rasmusbr · 2014-09-12 07:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Please.
  The intellectually hard work of software isn't the idea. It's almost entirely within the coding.
  When it comes to really ground-breaking stuff it is often the idea, but in those cases the idea belongs (and usually comes from) a paper published in a math or computer science journal or a journal from an adjacent field. It would probably not be a good idea to allow people to patents mathematical truths.
14. Re:Double-edged sword by gnupun · 2014-09-12 07:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Isn't gnome simply a visual clone of windows/os x windows managers. Where's the innovation?
15. Re:Double-edged sword by MightyMartian · 2014-09-12 07:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It's my firm belief that one cannot write any software of any moderate to large size without inevitably running afoul of some software patent. There are only two things that protect any developer:
  1. Distribution of their software is sufficiently small that it escapes the notice of patent trolls.
  2. Being a large company with a legal department capable of dealing with patent threats, and a bank account big enough to buy them off.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
16. Re:Double-edged sword by meerling · 2014-09-12 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  And here I thought having to pay for patent lawyers to research if an intended project might infringe upon a pre-existing patent, and then ending up 2-12 years later getting blindsided by patent trolls with a half dozen other patents that weren't found in the previous search being used to leach millions from the company would sure as heck seem to be a bigger disincentive than not being able to patent software.
17. Re:Double-edged sword by Dutch+Gun · 2014-09-12 07:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  As an independent software developer, I'd feel much more relieved if software patents were completely abolished. I *know* I'll never willingly infringe on someone's trademark or steal their source code. Those are things that are simple enough to check for. However, software patents are a ticking time bomb waiting to explode in your face. The sheer number of them and the impossibility of easily searching for them means any significant piece of software I write has a high likelihood of infringing on someone's patent.
  At the moment, software patents are really nothing but legal nuclear missiles. Every company of significant size has to keep a significant arsenal in order to prevent getting nuked by others. So, now instead of mutually assured destruction, we have "cross-licensing". And you have the patent trolls (arms dealers) who simply leech profits from the legal system by amassing quantities of patents on the cheap, and them attempting to sue "infringing" companies, hoping that a settlement will be cheaper than a legal battle, and the damned thing is, it often works, perpetuating the whole sordid system.
  Honestly, I'm not really even generally opposed to the concept of patents, or even of software patents in general. My stance is a more pragmatic one: I feel that we've seen demonstrable evidence that software patents have done a significant amount of harm to our industry, and I've seen no real evidence that the industry benefits in any real way, save for those few people that directly benefit from the "industry" around patents themselves. The government has proven itself absolutely inadequate to the task of judging the merits of these patents in a responsible way, and as such, I think we need to either revoke the ability to patent software altogether, drastically shorten the patent length, or put into law a much, much higher bar for new software patents.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
18. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  The incentive it decreases, it getting the statutes to explicitly say software can't be patented. As long SCOTUS is doing this instead of Congress, writing software is going to remain risky. You never know when you're violating some obscure patent, you'll never know what bullshit "tests" will be applied and whether they think you pass or fail. It'll remain arbitrary "justice," even when SCOTUS is on your side.
19. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 08:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You cannot prove that.
  I counter that the very high risk of being crushed by patent litigation costs decreases the incentive for people to innovate, and the crumbling of that risk actually increases this incentive.
20. Re:Double-edged sword by Teresita · 2014-09-12 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  So you want the justice to be less arbitrary...like when they rule something is obscenity? "I know it when I see it."
21. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  At least you can scroll with the Ubuntu dock but with gnome 3 which resizes the icons(smaller and smaller)based on the amount you have pinned you have squint to see what you are clicking on, but not sure if there is an option to change this. Plus, the side bar is definitely copied off of windows 8 but no shame here nobody should own gui ip's.
22. Re:Double-edged sword by Just+Some+Guy · 2014-09-12 09:38 · Score: 2
  
  That would be true if you could come up with good ideas (not bad or average ones) easily and cheaply, but you can't. You can work as hard as you want, but there's no guarantee you will come up with a good idea.
  Pfft - I came up with seven mind-blowingly awesome ideas before breakfast. The problem is that each would take several programmer-years to implement, so there's an enormously high risk:reward ratio for each.
  People don't copy other ideas because it's too hard to come up with their own good ones. They copy ideas because those ideas have already been vetted and proven viable in the marketplace (whether of ideas or of cash revenue).
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
23. Re:Double-edged sword by mark-t · 2014-09-12 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, because who would ever think that copyright would actually be of any value to anyone?
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
24. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  I wish gnome came even close to being a clone of the os x windows manager.
  Sadly every day I have to work with gnome I hate it even more.
  It tries to make my windows different sizes when I move it to the edge of my screen, like fucking MS windows does, and you can't even turn it off like you at least can on MS windows. OS X would never try to be as bold as to change the size of a window as you move it.
  There is only a cross turn close a window in gnome, all the other buttons are not there, it is not like the window decoration is small on gnome, but I guess not enough room for a few buttons. So I know how to minimize a window by right clicking in the window decoration. But you can't get the window back by clicking on the icon in the task bar. You can only try to get it back through a sort of badly thought out expose, where I can never find the window, oddly enough I have no such problems on OS X version of expose.
  Then, trying to change the size of a window by dragging the corners/side. There is only a single pixel where you can pick up the window, in fact the hot spot is smaller then the three pixels of window decoration at the bottom. OS X gives you quite a larger hot spot for scaling windows, I never grap wrong, gnome takes me at least 15 seconds to start scaling a window, after just missing it and raising the window behind it.
  gnome must die.
25. Re:Double-edged sword by gwolf · 2014-09-12 10:08 · Score: 2
  
  I think I feel as uncomfortable using GNOME 3 as much as you, but for that matter, I cannot use any kind of desktop environment. So I'm neither a GNOME fan or detractor, I'm just a weird user.
  However, GNOME-like environments did provide more than one concepts that were later incorporated in other environments — Including the industry mainstream.Take as an example transparency handling and live window miniaturization (adopted in Windows Vista and 7). The "wobbly windows" and "cube desktop" ideas were loved by some, but it does not matter too much that they fell out of favor: They displayed ideas (and implementations) that would later be copied elsewhere.
  Yes, I know the wobbly windows are based on technology which is not so distant from NeXT's Display Postscript (and of course became part of MacOS X). But the transparency was added in Linux-land and later appeared in Windows. Going back to a tiling interface (which, yes, was Windows 1.x but largely disappeared from the mainstream for >20 years) is also a Linux contribution; I started using a tiling WM in 2006, and saw that concept start being adopted in more mainstream Linux environments some years later; it seems nowadays tiling WMs are allthe rage (as they are part of the "tablet mindset" we all love to hate).
  So, yes, there have been concepts introduced (or re-introduced after a too long hiatus) both in GNOME-land and in the wider Linux-land. I won't go into more details as I'm GNOME-illiterate, but some bits are easy to find :)
26. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  That would be true if you could come up with good ideas (not bad or average ones) easily and cheaply, but you can't. You can work as hard as you want, but there's no guarantee you will come up with a good idea.
  Sez you. You seem to be hung up on the "coding" part. What the GP should have said is "execution." Good ideas are literally a dime a dozen (or with legalization, a dime-bag a dozen). But execution, which includes coding but also a whole lot more like business plans, marketing, capital, etc, is the hard part.
27. Re:Double-edged sword by niftymitch · 2014-09-12 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  It decreases the incentive for some people. There are plenty of counterexamples of unpatented innovative software. I know I know, don't feed the trolls.
  The part about "don't feed the trolls" is the important part.
  If this shifts the balance of power such that patent trolls see less and less
  value in flexing legal muscle things are a win.
  True innovation still has merit but if the same obvious to try permutations criteria
  that drug inventions are being held to apply we will be better off.
  i.e. if a data link is used and a patent for RS-232 is issued it makes no
  sense that an RS-485 is novel enough to justify a new patent. Same for
  WiFi, Cell data, BlueTooth....
  Design patents like rounded corners do need to be addressed.
  
  --
  Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
28. Re:Double-edged sword by niftymitch · 2014-09-12 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  IMO, you should be able to patent processes that are based on new technological development, but not the logic/flowpath of the process. Software itself should fall under copyright law.
  Copyright law has been polluted by Micky Mouse.
  As a result software should NOT fall under copyright law.
  It is "Goofy" as heck that each time the Copyright of the old
  mouse comes up the bar moves is insane.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
  Copyright might cover the text of code as code tells a story of what
  is happening but to patent all stories about "Boy meets girl, boy and
  girl fall in love, something happens under the covers and they live
  happily ever after" is not worthy of a patent or copyright.
  Sadly many method and process patents are little more than outlines
  of a screenplay level abstractions of an idea. Further some of the
  Copyright laws cover characters and plot formats. To this end characters
  and plot formats are kin of an API. We have seen the nasty bits
  that can happen when API freedom is murky (Java: Oracle-Google).
  When the API is found to have value in and of itself the "owner" wants
  to pull in the reign and put a context on permissions. Hardback books
  might be OK but not paperback and not eBook stories.
  Authors of Sherlock Holmes and other serialized character based stories
  protected their intellectual property with Copyright. Today I am prohibited
  from crafting stories and screenplays about a character "Sheldon Cooper"
  that ..... Well you get the idea.
  Copyright is the wrong choice. We need a better answer, a much better answer.
  It is good to note that code is authored. Good code like a good story has structure,
  consistency, organization and purpose. Side effects are possible. It can be asynchronous
  perhaps in a Kurt Vonnegut way. The choice of language, punctuation and typography
  might reflect on e.e. cummings.. It can be vapid and return the empty set or return
  vastly more to the point that some spend a lifetime building on it.
  
  --
  Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
29. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 12:17 · Score: 0
  
  Methods, processes, algorithms, formulas, ideas; should not be patentable. Patents should be limited to the physical aspects of a useful novel device.
30. Re:Double-edged sword by speedplane · 2014-09-12 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  The intellectually hard work of software isn't the idea. It's almost entirely within the coding.
  Good ideas usually come in a flash, so they appear to be "cheap." However, they are also usually the result of trial and error over and over again and being deeply entrenched in the field.
  
  --
  Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
31. Re:Double-edged sword by Patent+Lover · 2014-09-12 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  The One Click patent sure made some money.
32. Re:Double-edged sword by Altrag · 2014-09-12 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  ...but it decreases the incentive for people to make^H^H^H^Hstifle innovative software
  FTFY.
33. Re:Double-edged sword by Mr+D+from+63 · 2014-09-12 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  If you have a solution, propose it.
  
  Your Sherlock Holmes example would not apply. Code copyright would be quite simple as it would protect from copying actual code. Coding for a similar purpose would be OK as long as you don't copy. Anyone can write mystery novels that follow basically the same general plotline, we see it all the time, just don't use the same characters, use your own characters. Use your own code or license what you want to copy.
34. Re:Double-edged sword by Forever+Wondering · 2014-09-12 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  It already does, but even that can be abused.
  In the "Oracle v. Google" trial [regarding Java APIs], Judge Alsup ruled for Google. Google had recreated their software from scratch using the API documents as a reference. That is, they did not use any Oracle/Sun code [except for a rangeCheck function that was less that 10 lines]. Alsup took great pains to write an informed opinion [even learning how to code a little].
  However, the 9th circuit appeals court overturned this. One of the worst decisions ever. It's tantamount to saying that a copyright confers patent-like protections.
  
  --
  Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
35. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 18:58 · Score: 0
  
  Please don't mention gnome3 in the context of something positive.
36. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 21:24 · Score: 0
  
  Innovative isn't synonymous with good. When it comes to both user interface design and code innovative is a bad thing. I think GNOME3 is a great example of innovation.
  Meanwhile, time to continue with my innovative interpretation of tax laws.
37. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 21:28 · Score: 0
  
  That is your problem right there. You hear innovative and associate it with positive.
  I don't want the people who designs the brakes for my car and the elevator I use to be innovative. I don't want the bank who handles my money to be innovative with it.
  Stop thinking of innovative as something that always is positive, it's all context dependent.
38. Re:Double-edged sword by KiloByte · 2014-09-12 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  No, innovation is usually good. Without it, we'd never move forward, including having gotten to where we are now. It's just that you need to weed good innovation from bad.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
39. Re: Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 23:28 · Score: 0
  
  Most software developers I know (including myself) innovate to improve themselves and other's lives, not because of greed.
40. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 23:37 · Score: 0
  
  Pfft - I came up with seven mind-blowingly awesome ideas before breakfast.
  This claim is a good sign that you came up with zero good ideas.
41. Re:Double-edged sword by budgenator · 2014-09-13 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, GNOME3 is a counterexample. I wish Microsoft held a patent on obnoxious tabletized UIs.
  M$ may not hold a patent on obnoxious tabletized UIs, but they are definately the World Leader on their implimentation.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
42. Re:Double-edged sword by Dutch+Gun · 2014-09-13 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  I stand by my statement that parents haven't been good for the industry. I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon has spent more on fighting patent-related lawsuits than they ever received in royalties from their own patents. Bezos himself has famously expressed his doubts about the current patent system both many years ago, and again more recently. Having entered the cutthroat world of mobile devices, I can imagine the patent minefield there is a pretty massive headache for them, as it seems to be for other major players.
  In any case, the One-Click patent is a perfect example of why the patent office can't be trusted to adhere to the "patently obvious" principle anymore - at least, not with software. Such a mechanism was pretty damn obvious to anyone who knew how cookies worked, and was a pretty obvious extension of that existing technology, certainly not worthy of a patent, and not for such a ridiculously long time. It was simply a legal license to extort money from competitors because Amazon happened to beat everyone to the punch in patenting a rather obvious web-based mechanism for making shopping more convenient.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
43. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 14:41 · Score: 0
  
  You seem to be conflating Unix contributions and Linux contributions. I assure you, Linux contributed nothing to Windows 1.x.
44. Re: Double-edged sword by Baki · 2014-09-16 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Onthe other hand, incentives might increase. Is there any proof?
45. Re: Double-edged sword by mi · 2014-09-16 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  The source of the decrease is fairly obvious — if people can not profit from an activity, they are likely to reduce partaking in it. It goes from being a profession into a hobby.
  Now, what would the source of increase be?
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
46. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-18 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong.
  Copyright is more than enough protection.
  All software patents are invalid because they are all based on mathematics, which is not patentable. I have yet to see a software patent that is novel, not obvious and not heavily based on prior art.
47. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-18 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you specifically mention Gnome 3 when all versions of Gnome have been uncomfortable piles of shit.
48. Re:Double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-18 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  No, innovation is usually good.
  Citation needed
Yay! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 07:13 · Score: 0

This is good news.
1. Re:Yay! by devjoe · 2014-09-12 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  The first story about "on a computer" patents getting invalidated is a good thing. But the second story is perhaps even more important. People are taking notice that patent examiners are not doing their jobs. Too many of them are just working one day a week/month/whatever and just rubberstamping their quota of patents, allowing anything whatsoever through the system, and falsely reporting that they worked full time and even overtime, because there is a corrupt culture that lets them get away with it. Exposing this could lead to mass firings, and some sort of system to ensure real accountability.
  It's a problem, though, because there's no simple metric to determine whether patent examiners are doing a good job. Using number of patents reviewed as that metric encourages examiners to do a shoddy job actually examining the patents (i.e. what has actually been happening). If they are expected to pass only a certain fraction of patents, this is slightly better since it forces them to actually come up with reasons to reject some patents, but what fraction should they use? Two examiners doing perfect jobs may have very different fractions of accepted patents simply because one got better patents to review than the other, especially if they have different focus areas. Does the patent office even know the fraction of submitted patents in various areas which are good? A better metric would be whether accepted patents survive in the courts, but this depends on somebody actually challenging the patents and takes years after the fact. It might help now throw out some of the patent examiners who clearly haven't been doing their jobs in the past.
  I'm not sure what the right solution is. Blind peer review and multiple review? Assign each patent to 2 or 3 different reviewers and call to carpet the ones who most consistently differ from others? Does that even work if half your patent examiners are shirking?
2. Re:Yay! by iMadeGhostzilla · 2014-09-12 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  Abolish patents. They were originally created to protect small companies from big ones and so simulate inventions. Today all signs point that small companies are more likely to be disadvantaged by patents held by big companies or trolls. Whatever inventing is happening seems to be despite the patent system, not because of it. So in ideal world, you'd make a poll of small companies -- those that the law intends to protect -- whether they would prefer to have the patent system preserved or not, then decide.
Software Business Methods are in danger by CajunArson · 2014-09-12 07:22 · Score: 1

If it's a "software patent" where it's really just a financial transaction with an "on a computer" part added, then it's in trouble.
However, lots & lots of patents that include computing systems where software is in the mix will be perfectly fine as long as they are actually directed to technological improvements as opposed to business method + computer claims.

--
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
1. Re:Software Business Methods are in danger by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  Software is Mathematics - Mathematics are not patentable.
  Computers/Tablets/Phones/ are general purpose hardware and cannot be used to transform unpatentable works into patentable works.
2. Re:Software Business Methods are in danger by HiThere · 2014-09-12 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  If you accept quantum theory (and just try to disprove it) then the perceptible universe is cannonically isomorphic to a subset of mathematics. If cannonically isomorphic isn't close enough to identity for you, I'd like an explanation of why not. (Well, except that several different things can have aspects that are cannonically isomorphic to the same thing...but perhaps that's just a way of saying that they have certain features that are essentially identical.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
3. Re:Software Business Methods are in danger by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  "Oh, the faster it spins, the further out these things fly, which can control -- why, this is just a negative feedback, like in a neural net or even an accumulated rounding error in a loop. Steam engines are just mathematics!"
  "The comb catches on the pods and leaves, but the fibers pass through. It's selecting, in order to sort objects by their properties and process different types of objects in different ways. This cotton gin is just mathematics!"
  "Nobody observed or tested any of this, but this equation describes an 8 dimensional thing elegantly. Why, everything in the universe is just mathematics!"
4. Re:Software Business Methods are in danger by mark-t · 2014-09-12 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  Mathematics is deterministic. The universe is not. The fact that the halting problem could have even been conjectured proves that it is not.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
5. Re:Software Business Methods are in danger by ZombieBraintrust · 2014-09-12 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Software is not only mathematics. Example:
  print Hello World
  The above statement is speech. Now math may be used to transform that statement into 1 ands 0's. More math can transform it into a commands that cause Hello World to be printed. But the code itself exists separate from that implementation. In math there is no "hello" there is no "world". Placing hello next to world has no meaning in mathematics. This is speech.
6. Re:Software Business Methods are in danger by uCallHimDrJ0NES · 2014-09-12 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  If you accept quantum theory (and just try to disprove it) then the perceptible universe is cannonically isomorphic to a subset of mathematics. If cannonically isomorphic isn't close enough to identity for you, I'd like an explanation of why not. (Well, except that several different things can have aspects that are cannonically isomorphic to the same thing...but perhaps that's just a way of saying that they have certain features that are essentially identical.)
  Spelling counts, mister Cannon.
  
  --
  Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
7. Re:Software Business Methods are in danger by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 19:20 · Score: 0
  
  Software is not only mathematics. Example:
  print Hello World
  The above statement is speech. Now math may be used to transform that statement into 1 ands 0's. More math can transform it into a commands that cause Hello World to be printed. But the code itself exists separate from that implementation. In math there is no "hello" there is no "world". Placing hello next to world has no meaning in mathematics. This is speech.
  Go read SICP. It's freely available online.
8. Re:Software Business Methods are in danger by HiThere · 2014-09-13 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  OK. Sorry. Make that "canonically isomorphic".
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Daily Kos blog by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 07:22 · Score: 0

Quoting Vox...
It would be better to find a real news site instead of that blog trying to pass itself off as one.
Every time a patent gets invalidated by gstoddart · 2014-09-12 07:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Every time a patent gets invalidated ... a developer gets their wings. :-P
There may be some things which truly are inventions, but so many software patents come down to "a system and methodology for doing something which has been done in the real world for decades, but on a computer". And then someone comes along and patents the exact same thing on a tablet. And on a cell phone. And soon, on an iWatch.
There's no net-new invention, just an implementation of something which has been seen before.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:Every time a patent gets invalidated by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 07:58 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  There may be some things which truly are inventions, but so many software patents come down to "a system and methodology for doing something which has been done in the real world for decades, but on a computer"
  
  Because patents are on processes, not products. That's always been the case. Sorry if that busts your bubble but it's the way it was set out from the start.
  
  There's no net-new invention, just an implementation of something which has been seen before.
  
  Yeah, because morons like you think that a loom shouldn't be patentable because someone can hand-weave and make the same textile. Again, the patent is on the process, not the end product.
2. Re:Every time a patent gets invalidated by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  We're developers, not angels.
  Every time a patent gets invalidated ... a developer grows facial hair. :-P
Reality Check by ZombieBraintrust · 2014-09-12 07:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Making innovative software was a good way to get sued before the Supreme Court stepped in. Google had to spend more money on patents and litigation than it did on R&D. Small start ups were being squeezed by lawyers. There are about 11 million profesional software developers and another 7.5 hobiest programmers. These programmers produce code everyday. Every line of code coud be patented. Every line of code should be prior art. Do you think the patent office examines the 1.2 million apps in the Itunes app store? Does it keep up to date on GitHub's 3.4 million users? Every update, every submission is prior art. None of it is looked at. Patents on software is a bad joke.
1. Re:Reality Check by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 08:14 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  So rounded corners were a unique invention and we never saw them on cupboards or counters before Apple received a patent for them? I know, a status bar is unique from a pressure gauge? Menu systems never existed until computers? Boolean operations never existed prior to computers and Microsoft was the first in history to use "if not then" form of logic?
  Good grief, you anonymous cowards that attempt to support and maintain a broken system are the true Slashtards. If you don't understand the fundamental difference between Copyright and Patent then shut the fuck up (E.G. keep your fists up your ass instead of on a keyboard)
  Posting AC to spend mod points.
2. Re:Reality Check by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  > Every update, every submission is prior art.
  But...that doesn't matter anymore since the system is now "first to file": http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/16/a-brave-new-patent-world-first-to-file-becomes-law/id=37601/
3. Re:Reality Check by ZombieBraintrust · 2014-09-12 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  America uses first-inventor-to-file not first to file. If the invention is already disclosed to the public you can't get a patent on it. First to file only matters when two applicants kept their inventions secret and then file patent applications. (their is a grace period after public disclosure where you can still file an application) Prior art can still invalidate patents. Applications published to GitHub publically would be prior art. Private repo's might not be.. Apps published to the app store would be prior art. An unpublished app might not be.
4. Re:Reality Check by hibiki_r · 2014-09-12 09:38 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The way it works is not relevant: What matters is that, if I am writing code under a patent system, I am at risk of doing something that has already been covered by a patent. I can check for patents related to what I am doing, which is a major drain in productivity, and will increase penalties if it goes to trial and I am infringing, or I can code without looking, and be at risk that I am reinventing something that I never knew about.
  It's those costs, or the uncertainty that comes from acting as if the risk of getting sued do not exist, that make software patents a terrible deal.
Industry Needs Self-Certification or Academy by retroworks · 2014-09-12 07:37 · Score: 2

If the code-writing industry is going to rely on civil court judges and federal patent clerks to make the decisions, the firms with 2 lawyers per coder will win out. If the code-writing industry goes to no-patents, it will be from each coder according to his ability, to each according to his need. The only solution is for some industry gurus to come up with some rules which everyone agrees to abide by, and then to submit the concensus in friend-of-court decisions. I have no idea whether anyone in the industry is prepared to even define the 80/20 rule, but if they can agree on the WORST patent decisions (either way) and get some concensus on them, and then try to find commonalities in what made those "bad", it could be a start.

--
Gently reply
1. Re:Industry Needs Self-Certification or Academy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-18 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  What the fuck are you babbling about?
real problem is patent and copyright length by gurps_npc · 2014-09-12 07:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

The weakening of patent protections mean some small guys will be killed.
Particularly small patent holders that present ideas to big companies, hoping to be bought out, but instead get the shaft.
Honestly, the real problem is that patents last too long.
If you can't make your profit in 5 years, then your product was never very good in the first place. In that time, you should be able to 'corner the market', develop a brand - including the reputation for quality, and most importantly, learn business secrets that will give you a leg up against the competition.
After that time, you are just holding back other people from improving your product.
Perhaps we need a graduated patent system. Most patents would get 5 years, particularly impressive products get 10 years, and entirely new products that create new types of businesses/industries get 20 years. That is, an improvement to a cellphone gets 5 years, but the creation of a cell phone gets 20 years.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
1. Re:real problem is patent and copyright length by Calsar · 2014-09-12 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  What about drugs where it takes 10 years just get through clinical trials? Your patent would expire before you could even sell your product. The problem might be more of an issue of trying to apply one system to industries that are very different.
2. Re:real problem is patent and copyright length by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  What about drugs where it takes 10 years just get through clinical trials?
  If someone managed to get a software patent on a drug (medical or otherwise), I think that would go to show just how abusable the system is.
3. Re:real problem is patent and copyright length by radtea · 2014-09-12 08:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The weakening of patent protections mean some small guys will be killed.
  Particularly small patent holders that present ideas to big companies, hoping to be bought out, but instead get the shaft.
  
  Nope. A patent is a license to sue. Small players rarely have the resources to do so. A very small number take the risk, fewer still manage it successfully. Pointing to one or two cases where small players were successful is not an argument. You have to look at all patents held by small players, find out how many get violated and what fraction of those use the courts or plausible threat of legal action to defend themselves.
  I don't have the numbers, but from an insiders perspective (I am a small patent holder and have worked for a number of small players with patents) I can tell you that the average small player is very unlikely take court action, and that the average large player is unlikely to be much bothered by a threat of patent litigation from a small player, because they know they can simply exhaust the small player's resources.
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
4. Re:real problem is patent and copyright length by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  This is part of the problem: the same time for everything.
  Software on the internet for sale tomorrow? 5 years.
  New machine that it will take 1 year to mass manufacture? 5 years.
  New drug with 10-15 years of clinical trials*? 5 years.
  *http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/cancer-questions/how-long-does-it-take-for-a-new-drug-to-go-through-clinical-trials
5. Re:real problem is patent and copyright length by MobyDisk · 2014-09-12 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Particularly small patent holders that present ideas to big companies, hoping to be bought out, but instead get the shaft.
  But this isn't really the business model in software though. I only know of software companies that make actual software products. I don't know of any software companies that do software R&D, patent their idea, then sell it to a bigger company. The reason for this is that the barriers to creating a finished software product are really low compared to other industries like hardware and biotech. So if you have a phenomenal idea, you are usually capable of implementing it. Not so true in biotech, where you may only be able to afford to prototype the idea, then you need a big company to make it into an actual product.
6. Re:real problem is patent and copyright length by gurps_npc · 2014-09-12 09:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  For such things, than 20 or 50 years is too short. If the government's rules and regulations delay (but not prevent) the sale of a product, all such patents should start from the day the product is legally approved for sale.
  The basic idea of having drug patents start from the date of invention rather than the date of first legal sale is itself ridiculous. Worse, the idea of just 'extending' the patent length for them is pretty stupid, but the absolute WORST idea is to design the rules for ALL products based on this one industry. The only reason it is not done reasonable is because then non-medical community loves to use the problems with medical patents as an excuse to grab money for non-medical patents.
  
  --
  excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
7. Re:real problem is patent and copyright length by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  The basic idea of having drug patents start from the date of invention rather than the date of first legal sale is itself ridiculous.
  The worst part of this is that it encourages companies to skimp on testing. Not only does more testing increase costs, it also shortens the effective patent period.
  In terms of determining rules by one industry's needs, that cuts both ways. The pharmaceuticals industry has the most compelling story in terms of justifying patents. Software has the least. Both industries would be helped by taking them out of the existing system to get the special treatment that each deserves. This would allow the existing patent system to concentrate on those areas that are less special.
8. Re:real problem is patent and copyright length by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  Small guys don't have millions of dollars budgeted annually for legal costs to defend and protect their patents. Oh, they can partner with a non practicing entity aka Patent Troll in exchange for a nice chunk of any fees collected on behalf of their patent. Super, that's how patents were designed to work, right? Tie things up in the legal system, shakedown companies with vague infringement assertions, bleed them dry in attorney fees and feed the precious lawyers.
9. Re:real problem is patent and copyright length by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 20:31 · Score: 0
  
  I think it depends where you do business.
  I've worked for companies that knowingly and willingly infringe patents, and have been for 14+ years. We primarily do business with companies Aus/NZ, China, Korea, Japan, and Germany - (very little in the US for various reasons), and they're a pretty damn big company with devices in millions of cars, trucks, planes, and universities around the world.
  They've gone through one legal threat in that time, and basically responded "have fun holding up the patent" - and we were never taken to court.
  For some people, ~2mil a year in litigation just isn't a concern - especially given it's likely you can invalidate stupid patents, and counter-measures are in themselves a gold mine when you win.
10. Re:real problem is patent and copyright length by EuclideanSilence · 2014-09-13 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I had a gold dollar for every random length of time I've seen assigned to patents or copyrights. But this is amazing. THREE arbitrary lengths of time in yet ANOTHER patent/copyright reform post.
  Do yourself a favor and look up all the other posts that came before you. Everyone has some length of time that they think is best, but no one has any reason for it. Because there is no reason for it.
  While at the same time, the patent/copyright forever movement has 1 unified goal. Anything closer to forever. This is why there will be no reform, because you refuse to use reason.
11. Re:real problem is patent and copyright length by Khyber · 2014-09-13 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  "If you can't make your profit in 5 years, then your product was never very good in the first place."
  I could think of several exceptions to that. Music that was way ahead in style for the time and age in which it was produced is just the first one that pops into my head at the moment. Need coffee.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
12. Re:real problem is patent and copyright length by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 12:41 · Score: 0
  
  If you can't make your profit in 5 years, then your product was never very good in the first place.
  You assume that people patent things when they already have an end product in hand. That is almost never the case. There have been many cases where it takes that long, or even longer, to even implement an idea. In those cases, by the time they get all the heavy lifting and research to get to a finished product, large companies would be able to just copy and market it with their own established name with sheer momentum, far usurping any tiny brand that the original creator may have been trying to make.
Comprehensive discussion here by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 07:52 · Score: 0

I might as well, once again, plug a fine book about the absurdity of software patents, should you wish to know details:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/books/2005/mathyoucantuse
Naturally... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 07:54 · Score: 0

I have a patent for code that takes pre-existing information, and then uses that information.
I'm going to be filthy rich when I start challenging companies with this. :)
Other side of the story. by pavon · 2014-09-12 07:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

When Arstechnica ran that WP story about corruption in the USPTO, several current and past patent examiners posted comments that are worth reading. Two key ones in particular are this and this.
Short story is that USPTO has stupid counterproductive performance metrics, so everyone games the system to look good by the metrics (we've all seen that before). Some managers recognize this and don't want to be assholes about time charging rules because of it, as long as employees are doing good work. Others get upset that the rules are being broken and assume it is blatant time card fraud, and blew the whistle to the news outlets.
1. Re:Other side of the story. by Koreantoast · 2014-09-12 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  While it is a bit complex on the surface, the USPTO's metrics are pretty straight forward: an X level patent examiner should be able to examine Y number of patents in a given quarter. Some patent applications take longer than others, but it all averages out in a year. Meet the minimum requirements, and you get paid. Exceed those requirements, and you get a bonus. In my opinion, its probably one of the most meritocratic agencies in the entire Federal government. All the time tracking issues revolves around the second time card they keep to try and fine tune what Y should be for X, but I didn't get a feel that the situation was so bad that it would significantly impact the numbers.
2. Re:Other side of the story. by mdfst13 · 2014-09-12 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  In my opinion, its probably one of the most meritocratic agencies in the entire Federal government.
  Sure...until someone figures out that if you just stamp the application Approved or Rejected without reading it, you can process it much faster and get a bigger bonus. Perhaps their system would catch that particular problem, but I'm sure that there is some way to cheat on doing the work in favor of getting faster completions. I'd rather encourage good work than quick work. Unfortunately, it can be hard to distinguish good work from bad work. Quick is easier to measure but not nearly as valuable.
  The part about giving a bonus for being quicker than others is especially egregious in a system that relies on averages. It encourages people to find ways to quickly dump patent applications that are complex to evaluate. This makes the whole system slower while making that examiner's stats look better. It also discourages people from looking deeper into applications that mostly fit a particular narrative but which would require a much longer period to evaluate properly.
3. Re:Other side of the story. by uCallHimDrJ0NES · 2014-09-12 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Your title implies that there are two sides to every story. There are not. There are seven sides to most stories, with some stories acquiring four additional sides when no one is thinking about them. The remaining stories that don't fit this model almost without exception have 3.6 sides.
  
  --
  Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
4. Re:Other side of the story. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  You don't get to just stamp an allowance until you've been there at least 5 years. Most examiners never get there, and those that do don't bother rubber stamping everything lest you be found out quite easily.
5. Re:Other side of the story. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 10:03 · Score: 0
  
  What happens when your helpdesk is graded on "time to close" rather than "quality of assistance"?
  Things get closed quickly, and to the devil with actually helping anyone.
  And so it is here.
  The patent will be decided ( approved* ) quickly ( never mind is it novel or non-obvious ), cause that is the examiner's incentive.
  *cause not approving it will mean work justifying why not, which will distract from approving ( er, hum, deciding ) other patents....
Turing is all the prior art needed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 07:59 · Score: 0

A Turing machine can be programmed to do anything any subsequent programmer has ever developed.
1. Re:Turing is all the prior art needed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  You should check a dictionary for the meaning of "subsequent".
MODERATION ABUSE by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 08:32 · Score: 0, Insightful

Why the heck is parent at "-1" moderation?
Parent is accurate. There are "Method" patents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_(patent)). Essentially, it says "I am doing something in a manner different from what has been seen before". I do take exception to the "I'm doing it with a computer!" attitude. However, consider for a moment, Huell's discontent with the state of patent arts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Holland_Duell) when people were doing the same thing "with a steam engine!".
Not the same AC as parent.
1. Re:MODERATION ABUSE by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is that most everything in the real world can be modelled or implemented on a computer. Your "with a steam engine" example would make more sense if it could do nearly as much.
Software == Math.... Math is not Patentable. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:31 · Score: 0

That's all there is to it. Software is not science. It is not innovation. It is simply math.
Wails of the tormented by Just+Some+Guy · 2014-09-12 10:37 · Score: 3, Funny

The best part is hearing the lamentations of software patent attorneys and rejoicing in the sounds of their despair.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
1. Re:Wails of the tormented by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  The best part is hearing the lamentations of software patent attorneys and rejoicing in the sounds of their despair.
  Mongol General: "Conan! What is good in life?"
  Conan: "To crush the software patent attorneys, drive them before you, and hear their lamentations as their business model is destroyed" :)
You cannot patent an idea by DrJimbo · 2014-09-12 10:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Legal Match explains:

You can patent pretty much anything under the sun that is made by man except laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. These categories are excluded subject matter from the scope of patents.
...
What Are Abstract Ideas?
Abstract ideas are concepts like pure mathematics and algorithms. You cannot patent a formula. However, you can patent an application of that formula. Thus, while you cannot patent a mathematical formula that produces nonrepeating patterns, you can patent paper products that use that formula to prevent rolls of paper from sticking together.
In the legal world it is widely accepted that ideas and algorithms cannot be patented. The reason we have/had software patents at all is that despite Bill Gates once saying that it would have been impossible to create Microsoft if software were patentable, Microsoft (and others I imagine) gave the courts a bull shit argument that since running software affects the physical state of the machine it is running on, software is more like a physical object and less like an idea or algorithm. Since the judges knew next to nothing about computers they accepted this bullshit argument hook, line, and sinker.
The problem with Microsoft's argument is that different implementations of the same algorithm create different physical configurations (electrons and so on) of the hardware. Likewise different CPU architectures create different physical configurations and so on. Microsoft's argument ends up with a patent that protects all possible implementations of a algorithm on a computer which is indistinguishable from patenting the algorithm itself.
That incredibly ill-informed and stupid decision opened the floodgates for "... on a computer" patents. The Supreme Court is now trying to rectify that mistake. Abstract ideas cannot be patented. Mathematics cannot be patented. Algorithms cannot be patented. However you can protect the expression of an algorithm by using copyright to protect your particular implementation. You cannot protect all possible implementations of an abstract idea.

--
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
1. Re:You cannot patent an idea by gnupun · 2014-09-12 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  Abstract ideas are concepts like pure mathematics and algorithms.
  There are many types of abstractions. Patents in general (not just software patents) are an abstraction of multiple implementations that competitors might create to forgo not paying licensing fees or break the patent owner's monopoly. Just because something is abstract does not mean it's non-patentable.
  
  Microsoft (and others I imagine) gave the courts a bull shit argument that since running software affects the physical state of the machine it is running on, software is more like a physical object and less like an idea or algorithm.
  Machines that control other machines are called control machines because the control machine decides what the lower level machine must do or not do. Your CPU has a considerable number of control machines controlling what lower level, grunt hardware like adders/multipliers are doing. Such CPU control hardware is patentable.
  Software is yet another control machine controlling the hardware control machines and sometimes the grunt hardware. Why should one control machine (hardware) be patent eligible and the other control machine (software) be patent ineligible? It's a nonsensical discrimination. Note that the functionality of these machines is identical whether it's done in hardware or software. The only difference is the hardware machine is likely orders of magnitude faster than the software control machine.
  Therefore Microsoft is right in claiming that software is in fact like a physical machine (since the 1s and 0s of software are real whereas your abstract ideas can't be clearly represented like that) that controls another physical machine (the CPU).
2. Re:You cannot patent an idea by Whorhay · 2014-09-13 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Software is not a machine, it is a set of instructions for a machine to execute. In this sense it is identical to a recipe, which is not patentable. It is however subject to copyright, which comically enough has longer terms of protection than patents do under current US law.
3. Re:You cannot patent an idea by Citizen+of+Earth · 2014-09-13 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  opened the floodgates for "... on a computer" patents
  followed by new patents on the same old ideas for "... on the web", "... on a smartphone", etc.
4. Re:You cannot patent an idea by DrJimbo · 2014-09-13 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Therefore Microsoft is right in claiming that software is in fact like a physical machine (since the 1s and 0s of software are real whereas your abstract ideas can't be clearly represented like that) that controls another physical machine (the CPU).
  
  Fine. Then the patent only covers one configuration of ones and zeros that implement the algorithm (corresponding to one physical machine), not every possible configuration of ones and zeros that implement the algorithm (which correspond to an infinite number of different machines). This means the patent is only good for their source code with their compiler with their set of compiler optimizations on one specific CPU architecture. They would be far better off using copyright instead.
  The leap you make from protecting one configuration of ones and zeros that implement an algorithm to protecting every possible configuration of ones and zeros that implement the same algorithm is exactly the part of the argument that I characterize as "stupid and ill-informed".
  Seriously, how is protecting every possible way to implement an algorithm (on a computer) any different from protecting the algorithm itself (on a computer)? The judges in that case can hide behind the excuse of being completely ignorant of how computers work. What's your excuse?
  
  --
  We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
  -- Anais Nin
5. Re:You cannot patent an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-15 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  a recipe is not subject to copyright. at least not in the uk, since it is a statement of fact and therefore not copyright-able.
  a particular layout of a recipe can be counted as creative and therefore subject to copyright but the basic recipe cannot.
6. Re:You cannot patent an idea by vilanye · 2014-09-18 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  You can not copyright the ingredient list in a recipe.
  You can copyright the instructions.
Alice does nothing to stop software patents by American+Patent+Guy · 2014-09-12 10:54 · Score: 1

The Alice decision stops the patenting of certain methods of using software (which some of you above are calling "business methods") that are not limited to certain computer configurations. An invention that includes a computer having software configured to perform certain well-defined steps is still patentable subject matter. The submitter (walterbyrd) and many others of you posting here apparently don't understand the distinction.
I will have no problem getting my clients patents to software inventions in light of the Alice decision. (Yes, I'm a patent attorney.)
Those of you who are software developers will actually be harmed by this incorrect point of view: investors like guarantees of return on their investment. If there's no possibility of collecting royalties for innovative developments, the money will go elsewhere.
From time to time I am disgusted by the patents issued by the USPTO: it's apparent someone wasn't diligently examining the case. Do you want less patent trolls out there? Then get Congress to throw some more money toward the USPTO specifically for the purpose of hiring competent people to do the examination. (I've corresponded with many examiners from overseas and apparently fresh out of college, some of which could barely speak English. I've got nothing against foreigners, but please lets hire people who can read and understand the subject matter of the patent applications.)
1. Re:Alice does nothing to stop software patents by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  Start with the Board of Appeals. They allow everything. For the most part, examiners do their part.
2. Re:Alice does nothing to stop software patents by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-18 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  You better find a new area of law because software patents are invalid.
  Every last one of them.
  They are all obvious and based heavily on prior art.
  They are also all mathematical constructs.
  If you don't think so post one you think it is invalid, and I will show you that it is invalid.
  Copyright is enough protection to attract investors. Your self-serving fears are obvious.
  Don't cry because you are becoming obsolete.
3. Re:Alice does nothing to stop software patents by American+Patent+Guy · 2014-09-18 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  I would be pleased to offer you a reply to your unsupported mastications, but unfortunately I require that I be paid in advance.
  Apparently you don't understand how lawyering works: the greater the controversy, the more people involved want us to work for them. With views such as yours out there, I'm confident I'll have work for a long, long time...
Next Stop Copyright Law by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 11:33 · Score: 0

*Choo Chooooooo*
Daily Kos blog by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 11:57 · Score: 0

Says someone reading slashdot.... Oh the irony. (And I suppose I've just double-ironied myself!)
Re:With Republican control of the government... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 12:32 · Score: 0

Sucks to be you greenwow. Republicans are about to take over Congress, they'll get the White House in two years, and there's nothing idiots like you can do to stop it
In the meantime, in EU by manu0601 · 2014-09-12 13:49 · Score: 2

The European Commission fought like hell to push software patents, and now they vanish in the US... nothing happen anymore.
That suggests the only motivation for software patents in EU was to have legislation on par for TAFTA.
Re:With Republican control of the government... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-18 11:02 · Score: 0

Congress can't force out SCOTUS members numbnuts.