Slashdot Mirror
Algorithmic Patenting
An anonymous reader writes: Venturebeat reports on companies using software to "create" patents. They say a company called Cloem will use the software to "linguistically manipulate a seed set of a client's patent claims by, for example, substituting in synonyms or reordering steps in a process, thereby generating tens of thousands of potentially patentable inventions." The article says, "There is reason to believe that at least some of its computer-conceived inventions could be patentable and, indeed, patents have already been granted on inventions designed wholly or in part by software."
This is a strategy for demonstrating the absurdity of the current patent regime, right?
Nothing is original; everything is patented.
Just riffing here... but what if you have a patent issued one of the inventors listed on the patent had to explain and defend it to a patent investigator/committee?
Obviously it wouldn't be at nearly the same level of detail as an oral defense, but at least it would mean someone has to understand the patent - someone other than the lawyers and/or software employed to make it as unreadable as possible.
It is time to eliminate the patent system. The only reward should be delivering the product to customers and making the sales.
anyone needed another proof that the patent system is FUBAR.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Unlike telemarketing, in which calls are "free," there are fees associated with excess claims on a patent. Unless you're quite certain these aspects of your "invention" are worth something, you'll lose money; unless, of course, you're a patent troll, and the facts of the matter are not important.
"There is reason to believe that at least some of its computer-conceived inventions could be patentable and, indeed, patents have already been granted on inventions designed wholly or in part by software."
Right. And according to Fox News, "It is SAID BY SOME that Obama isn't a native citizen. Not that *we're* saying it, mind you, so we can't be held accountable. It's just, you know, THEY said it was true. Who's THEY? Well, we can't tell you, and we can neither confirm nor deny that we're using 'they' in place of 'we.' So we're just going to state that it's some number of unnamed experts, or the public at large, or whatever. You know... THEM."
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
What about changing the patent system to something that makes holding multiple patents too costly?
The idea is that a company that holds patents (either via their employee, a parent company, or a holding of the company) would pay an exponential cost per additional patent. So, the first patent would cost $100, the second $200, the third $400 . . . the sixteenth $3,276,800. If a company doesn't want to pay the next tier for a patent, they can opt to convert a patent to public use and drop down a tier.
This would make it easy for an individual to patent something, but a company that is just acting as a patent suing machine would feel the effects pretty fast.
Just a thought.
Obtaining patents isn't free. One would have to look at the zillions of generated patent applications and decide which ones, if any, were worth the application and prosecution fees -- not to mention the attorney's fees. (It wouldn't be a very high percentage.) This is a pointless exercise.
My advice is to roll over and go back to sleep.
If the algorithm is the inventor, the algorithm should own the patent. No need for humans or corporations to get involved.
It is! I hope you've patented the process and all invariants using the software mentioned above; you'd be contributing to this over-stretched system in place in more ways than one.
enough said.
Face palm. Un-effing-real!
I need a drink.
I will just patent using the letters a-z / A-Z in tech.
Shouldn't it be called: Algorithmic Patent Trolling
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I think you may have meant this is a tragedy for demonstrating the absurdity of the current patent regime. Just a typo, I'm sure.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Sedgewick and Knuth et al. would be billionaires.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Have they patented the software they use to generate patents? :)
And so on? Such recursion might cause the patent office to explode.
Here's a patent-generating algorithm inspired by the "business process" nonsense of receiving patents just for automating long-known manual processes and/or putting them "on the internet":
Table-ized A.I.
I don't see why not (so long as software patents are allowed), but once you have your patent application, you'd better run the software on it and also submit all the variants it comes up with, before someone else does.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
could I make a program to generate "The song", e.g. a song that had every possible combination of sheet music, and copyright it? Sure, I'd have to exclude some parts, but I'd still end up owning music for the rest of time.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Since the patent offices have never stopped an obvious patent (obvious to one skilled in the art, rather than the patent officer or office records) quite why you brought this point up remains unclear.
If a monkey can't own the intellectual property it generates, nor transfer it to a human, how can a computer? I know that was a copyright case, but when it comes to ownership, aren't we talking about the same basic problem? Wouldn't any patent generated by computer be up for public domain?
It can be argued that patent lawyers for the past few decades have been gaming the system. Copyrights too. Now others are gaming those who would game the system. They cooked the system. Its skewed for those that have very deep pockets. Now they run the risk of competing patents diluting their IP. They will have to fight word by word and run the risk of having their bought-and-paid paper suddenly becoming insignificant. And if anyone else wants to build said product, they have to be very careful of doing things in an extremely particular order, lest they run afoul of someone else's patent. Lawyers have been gaming the system for a long time. Now we have many more lawyers in the mix. Lots of lawyers going after other lawyers with lots of paper. Defending a patent might get hellish because you just finish defending against one lawyer, and another pops its head up like a gopher in a meadow. This is awesome.
Back in 2009 I proposed a very similar system but for the purpose of generating prior art to thus invalidate as many troll patents as possible. I even posted it here on Slashdot. funny, I got no responses. Here's a link to my blog post about it: http://www.ideationizing.com/2....
Yes, I know. My method is not similar enough to invalidate their patent, which I am sure they will get despite their method being an algorithm. But this is Slashdot, the home of misleading headlines.
Just end the patent system now. This just magnifies the distortion that patents already inflict on the market.
this is as stupid as making money based on latency in computerized stock trading.
completely misses the point.
My understanding is that: Almost anything that algorithmic expansion creates would be in the realm of being obvious to one knowledgeable in that domain. Everything in that category need not be specified in the patent application and is not patentable separately. That means that including those variations is (1)unnecessary, (2) not helpful, and (3) merely adds cost to the patent.
Caveat lector: "My understanding is that," are "weasel words" that indicate I am not a lawyer and I am not giving legal advice and that I am enunciating my understanding, which could be totally incorrect.