Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Algorithmic Patenting

Posted by Soulskill on from the monkeys-at-typewriters dept.

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."

59 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. A good strategy by radl33t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a strategy for demonstrating the absurdity of the current patent regime, right?

    1. Re:A good strategy by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a strategy for demonstrating the absurdity of the current patent regime, right?

      Unintentionally, no doubt. On the bright side the more absurdly and widely abused the system is the more ammunition for reforming it. I hope they cause a real mess spamming the USPTO with every possible patentable combination of words. Maybe they'll replace the USPTO staff with an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters to process them.

      --
      Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
    2. Re:A good strategy by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Informative

      In true Slashdot style, I haven't read TFA, but TFS sounds like Venturebeat is stirring up a good old-fashioned angry mob.

      Historically, patent lawsuits have been won or lost based on careful wording. A good synonym can mean an enormous financial difference for an inventor (or inventor-funding company).

      Patents must be specific enough to describe a particular set of implementations of an idea, rather than just the general idea itself. Despite Slashdot's love of the phrase, "on a computer" does not a patent make. Rather, the patent must describe exactly how the computer functions with regard to the invention itself. Yes, sometimes that means describing the only reasonable mechanism, but it's still specific.

      On the other hand, that specificity can be problematic when it comes time to actually use the exclusivity a patent provides. A car-analogy patent might have been worded to refer to driving on asphalt, but there are some roads that are paved with concrete or bricks. Hiring a specialist to find such trivial loopholes might be a very good investment for an applicant trying to write their patent. Any realistically-equivalent implementations can be added to the patent as additional claims.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:A good strategy by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Having now read TFA, I must partially retract my previous statement. Venturebeat isn't raising the angry mob, but Slashdot is.

      TFA is actually mostly focused on the effect such almost-the-same claims would have on the concept of inventorship. Currently, it's straightforward: If someone discovers an alternate implementation, they get credit. However, if an inventor gives a seed patent to Cloem's software, and the software produces a list of almost-the-same implementations, who gets credit for those? The inventor of the seed patent? Cloem's software engineers? The computer itself?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:A good strategy by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It looks like a very effective denial of service attack, to me. No law school is shitty enough to puke out patent examiners that cost less per hour than some glorified Markov chain, so barring some sort of rate limiting, with teeth, you should be able to shove a lot of utter shit through by sheer brute force.

      Even better, if the patent examiners don't just crack under the strain, then they do the job of distinguishing vaguely worthwhile patents from algorithmic word salad for you!

    5. Re:A good strategy by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I'm not privy to the details of the implementation; but it sounds like they are aiming to solve that problem by just brutalizing the permutation space. It's probably not as good as a really good human; but hand an expert system a thesaurus and it can probably spew 'equivalent' implementation claims at an unbelievable pace, even if many of them are of low quality or not really worth mentioning.

      Quantity has a quality all its own, as one Mr. Stalin is alleged to have said.

    6. Re:A good strategy by dissy · · Score: 1

      However, if an inventor gives a seed patent to Cloem's software, and the software produces a list of almost-the-same implementations, who gets credit for those? The inventor of the seed patent? Cloem's software engineers? The computer itself?

      My guess is which ever one signs the checks to the patent attorney.
      So probably the computer ;P

    7. Re:A good strategy by thieh · · Score: 1

      I wonder why nobody come up with an algorithm generator to spam software patents already. Seems like the goal is the wording and not the substance all along.

    8. Re:A good strategy by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      You haven't read the MMO patent, or any of the other child like patents, have you. Patents like those are very non-specific to the point were they couldn't be used to build the system they claim to have invented.

    9. Re:A good strategy by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      Screw it, let's just do straight up Markov chains to generate patents, see if anyone notices.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    10. Re:A good strategy by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      It's also real life imitating art, because the protagonist of Charles Stross' novel Accelerando ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) uses this technique and becomes persona non-grata in the US. The book came out in 2005.

    11. Re:A good strategy by russotto · · Score: 1

      Patents must be specific enough to describe a particular set of implementations of an idea, rather than just the general idea itself. Despite Slashdot's love of the phrase, "on a computer" does not a patent make.

      Not only does "on a computer" make a patent, "on a machine readable medium" (Beauregard claim) is quite sufficient.

      On the other hand, that specificity can be problematic when it comes time to actually use the exclusivity a patent provides.

      Doctrine of equivalents.

      Stop apologizing for the patent system; it's broken.

    12. Re:A good strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'll replace the USPTO staff with an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters to process them.

      An easier solution is a large rubber stamp with the work REJECTED on it. Just run each patent claim through one of those programs that colleges use to detect plagiarism. Have some minimum wage office worker stamp each one that is too similar to another. If several patents are flagged as being too similar you start fining the attorneys filing them.

    13. Re:A good strategy by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I wonder why nobody come up with an algorithm generator to spam software patents already. Seems like the goal is the wording and not the substance all along.

      Well, the whole problem is that it's not supposed to be. Form over substance was never supposed to be the point of patent applications. But generations of lawyers and government patent examiners have made it so.

    14. Re:A good strategy by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 2
      The problem is in the number of possible combinations. Even if you take a small number of possible elements, and a smaller subset of chosen elements from that original set, you start generating serious numbers of patents. Say you were going to make a new bar code reader. You have 20 possible things you can put in that bar code reader. Rotating 8 sided mirror. Rotating 6 sided mirror. Oscillating mirror. Shape memory alloy actuators. DC motor drive. Stepper motor. Fixed mirror set. Red diode laser. Infrared diode laser. LED lighting. CMOS imager. Light sensitive diode. CCD imager. Fresnel lens. Cylindrical lens. Holographic lens. Etc. It would be very easy to find many more than twenty elements for "things to make a bar code reader". Just, for ha-has, stick with 20. Now, say your novel invention comprises a six element combination not found in other bar code readers. How many possible combinations? You ARE relying on a computer to brute force this, aren't you? Well, that's 20 x 19 x 18 x 17 x 16 x 15 possible combinations for six elements chosen from a possible field of 20. That's 27,907,200 combinations. (Please don't quibble over my mathematical simplifications). That would be more patent applications than have ever been filed in the U.S. All your patent applications would say so far is that you have six elements, not how they are configured or how they function. There are a ton of ways you could configure an 8 sided rotating mirror, especially if it is interacting with a fixed mirror set, or an oscillating mirror set.

      .

      So if you wanted to patent all the combinations, you quickly run out of money. The USPTO charges thousands of dollars to process each application. If you wanted to patent the algorithm, the USPTO has a special kind of rejection for you. It is called "undue experimentation". In other words, you would have to perform a ridiculous amount of experimenting with unworkable and wrong combinations before you found one that works. In yet other words, no one is teaching you anything new by saying, "try a bunch of different combinations; one of them will work". Duh. Edison knew that, but he did the hard work of actually trying all the combinations, and finding the very few that worked. So, if the computer program isn't actually intelligent, it will waste a whole lot of resources attempting to patent useless crap.

      .

      TFA says that one company is copyrighting all possible 400 word combinations in the English language. That is 400 elements chosen from a set of around maybe 100,000 - 250,000 elements (English words). Since the words are allowed to repeat, taking the 100,000 figure, we have 100,000 raised to the 400th power, or 10^2400 possible combinations. Say the company had a very fast computer and was able to express and thereby claim 100 billion 400 word combinations per second. It would need just 10^2389 seconds to claim each combination. In very round numbers, a year is about 10^8 seconds, so the comany would need about 10^2381 years to complete it's task. In very round numbers, the lifetime of the universe is about 10^10 years, so the company would need about 10^2371 lifetimes of the universe to complete it's task. Or a faster computer. Or a new law that says that a person doesn't actually have to express something in order to copyright it.

      --
      Join the IParty!
    15. Re:A good strategy by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Isn't there a fee for filing a patent application? Maybe it should be exponential, with the cost doubling for every patent a company files that month. That would discourage excessive patent filing, but still be worth it to anyone who really did invent more than a few dozen genuine inventions per year.

      If there is no fee or it is very low, someone should do a Kickstarter to raise funds to auto-generate millions of time wasting patents and file them. Break the system, force reform.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:A good strategy by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Having now read TFA, I must partially retract my previous statement. Venturebeat isn't raising the angry mob, but Slashdot is.

      No, it's not just Slashdot. It's also whoever came up with this line (either VentureBeat or the company's marketing department):

      for example, substituting in synonyms or reordering steps in a process, thereby generating tens of thousands of potentially patentable inventions.

      First, substituting synonyms doesn't really work. Within a patent's claims, different words are presumed to have different meanings (i.e. if you meant the same thing in two places, you would have used the same word). So if you have one claim that says something is "big" and another claim that says something is "large", with the rest of the two claims being identical, you'll need to explain the difference between "big" and "large", or else one of the claims will be invalidated.

      Second, the steps in a method patent are considered unordered, unless some language imposes an ordering, such as saying, "After X, doing Y". Simply reordering the steps in a method does not by itself create a different invention, so one of the two claims would be invalid.

    17. Re:A good strategy by Bengie · · Score: 1

      "Obvious" is a relative term. What is obvious to a master in a field is not obvious to an untrained monkey. Plus there is virtually no incentive to reject patents and the rules around rejecting patents is so vague, the person who rejects a patent could get in a lot of trouble. They also base how good a patent clerk is doing based on the number of patent granted. There's a lot of bias in the system.

      Well, based on what I've read anyway. I don't actually work at the patent office or know anyone who does.

    18. Re:A good strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would think you could take a written text and work backwards from the word-order to generate the "state" of the brute force operation to figure out at what year in the future the patent would have come out of the monkey type-writer.

      My point is: if you set the dominoes in motion to brute force every possible patent, that monkey type-writer could be argued to be prior art for ANY patent with the "state" fast-forwarded through time to demonstrate that ANY written text would have been eventually produced by it after X years.

      To me: the heat death of the universe is no excuse to invalidate the patent. Edison had no right to the Lightbulb just because he invented it a couple trillion years before the patent application was output by the word processor. Sure it's a high latency word processor, but the time of authorship should be backdated to when the wheels were set in motion, not when the text popped out the other end.

    19. Re:A good strategy by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 1

      I like your basic point: completion of the disclosure should be irrelevant when considering the date of the invention! Who are these Time Nazis who run the USPTO?

      --
      Join the IParty!
    20. Re:A good strategy by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      It's also real life imitating art, because the protagonist of Charles Stross' novel Accelerando ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) uses this technique and becomes persona non-grata in the US. The book came out in 2005.

      I believe that Cory Doctorow's protagonist used this technique at one point in Eastern Standard Tribe as well.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    21. Re:A good strategy by tmh+-+The+Mad+Hacker · · Score: 1

      > staff with an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters

      Wow, you just defined "government bureau"!

  2. How about making patent reviews like PhDs? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:How about making patent reviews like PhDs? by meerling · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Alright sir, I see you are here to defend patent XJ82934952H28354. Why isn't the inventor here?
      > It is judge, I have it running on my smartphone.
      Really? Let's see, name Random Global Search And Replace Thesaurus Based Script Bot For Patents. That's a rather long name for a person, as well as a rather odd one. What were your parents named Mr Patents?
      > I'm sorry judge, but it doesn't have patents, it's a piece of software.
      Software? So you mean it's one of those AI thingies? A sentient machine like C3PO? Able think, imagine, and create new ideas?
      >Ummm... Not as such. It just changes words with other synonyms and sometimes reorders the steps in a sequence of steps.
      So let me get this straight. You patented someone elses work, after making minor modifications to it with something that has no more creativity or understanding than throwing random words into a jumble and expect to invent this despite patent laws requirement for it to be something that an expert in the field would not find obvious and yet "running an app" is something that anyone can do, even my two year old daughter that can't read, and absolutely in no way reaches that simple, though often argued over, benchmark?
      >I, uh, wouldn't put it that way your honor...
      Well I did. Patent revoked. In fact, all "patents" submitted that are creations of that stupid script are hereby revoked, and don't try it again or I'm going to throw the book at you for wasting everyones time you stupid little troll!
      .
      (Ok, I'd expect everything after the word "revoked" would just be in the judges head, but the thought counts, right?) :)

    2. Re:How about making patent reviews like PhDs? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I think we already have the answer to that question in the form of companies like Elsevier. Or was that not the peer review process you were talking about?

      Thesis defense style would break down pretty quickly, as people tend to like to get work done instead of spending every day on a review panel.

    3. Re:How about making patent reviews like PhDs? by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      I think it will be more like:

      Alright sir, I see you are here to defend patent XJ82934952H28354. Why isn't the inventor here?
      > I'm right here, your Honor!
      Someone said you used a computer program to write this patent. Is that true?
      > It sure is, your Honor! But then again, most everybody uses a computer program to write patents these days. Microsoft Word, for example.
      Ah, I see. Carry on!

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:How about making patent reviews like PhDs? by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      Clearly, people who are bad at extemporaneous speaking don't deserve patents.

    5. Re:How about making patent reviews like PhDs? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      I think we already have the answer to that question in the form of companies like Elsevier. Or was that not the peer review process you were talking about?

      No, journal reviews have nothing to do with oral defenses. And besides, Elsevier is a private company, we are talking about a public process. Who knows, the actual review process could be public (actually, SHOULD be public), even if in a "read only" sense (maybe with the ability to file prior art claims, etc).

      Thesis defense style would break down pretty quickly, as people tend to like to get work done instead of spending every day on a review panel.

      This is the 21st century. This doesn't have to involve a bunch of people sitting in a room all day. Could be video conference, could be asynchronous Q&A, etc. And the reviewers can be PAID to review, so they are getting work done since the review IS the work.

  3. Simple Fix - Eliminate Patent System by pubwvj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is time to eliminate the patent system. The only reward should be delivering the product to customers and making the sales.

    1. Re:Simple Fix - Eliminate Patent System by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      So this. Meantime, patents should only be defendable if the INVENTION is a: ready to market at the time of filing and b: ON the market when the filing is processed.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    2. Re:Simple Fix - Eliminate Patent System by C.+Mattix · · Score: 1

      Do you work for Zynga?

    3. Re:Simple Fix - Eliminate Patent System by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Eliminate it for software, certainly. Why does the US have software patents in the first place?

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    4. Re:Simple Fix - Eliminate Patent System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which means that only rich people will be able to ever invent anything, thus completely ruining the spirit of the patent system.

    5. Re:Simple Fix - Eliminate Patent System by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Do you work for Zynga?

      Do you know the difference between a patent and a trademark?

    6. Re:Simple Fix - Eliminate Patent System by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 1

      Sure, that will work. I'm sure the folks at Apple can just tell the Chinese and Koreans not to blatantly copy their products, because it is rude.

      --
      Join the IParty!
    7. Re:Simple Fix - Eliminate Patent System by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      the fuck are you on about?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  4. Just in case by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  5. Fees are a limiting factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  6. Riiight by tambo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "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.
    1. Re:Riiight by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      "it is said by some" or "critics say" is a tool used by all journalists. you cant say that is only a fox news thing. I know fox new is a fun and easy target, but seriously. this is something that happens on every network

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Riiight by meerling · · Score: 1

      Considering they got a judge to rule that "news" can be non-factual, aka shit they just made up for ratings, they'll just label it "news".

    3. Re:Riiight by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      "it is said by some" or "critics say" is a tool used by all journalists. you cant say that is only a fox news thing.

      One can use this tool, in good faith, to summarize well-known opinions and form questions in the context of an interview.

      One can also use it to spread innuendo, in the way that the GP illustrated: by giving unwarranted exposure to false ideas and presenting them in a disingenuous way, while at the same time disavowing any connection to them.

      Fox tends to do the latter.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  7. Ignoring the economics by dtmos · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Ignoring the economics by meerling · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's not free, but the potential profit for patent trolling is enormous and the fees in no way hinders them from abusing the process.

  8. Re:Exponential Patent Cost by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    I like that idea, i think the actual costs would need to be adjusted, but this gives the little guy a chance, while ensuring that patents are used or dropped. Dont know if its the best option but its better than most

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  9. Re:Exponential Patent Cost by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    The problem would be that they'd simply change their patent holdings to shell companies. Each shell company would hold about 4 patents.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  10. Re:Logical Conclusion of Patents by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

    I'd take it. Your "logical" conclusion is no different from abolishing patents altogether, minus a 20 year wait which, in the grand scheme of things, is pretty inconsequential.

  11. Re:Exponential Patent Cost by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    well you write in wording that would correct for that

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  12. Bad article title by DickBreath · · Score: 2

    Shouldn't it be called: Algorithmic Patent Trolling

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  13. Re:A good tragedy by DickBreath · · Score: 2

    This is a strategy for demonstrating the absurdity of the current patent regime, right?

    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.
  14. If so.. by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Sedgewick and Knuth et al. would be billionaires.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  15. So... by Meneth · · Score: 1

    Have they patented the software they use to generate patents? :)

  16. But can you patent the software that gens patents? by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    And so on? Such recursion might cause the patent office to explode.

  17. Algorithm #47 by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    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":

    activities = "deliver pizza, make calls, send message, give birth, etc.";
    methods = "rocket, lasers, internet, light, quantum fluctuations, hiccups, etc.";
    for a = each(activities) {
      for m = each(methods) {
        print (a + " via " + m + ".");
      }
    }

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  18. Re:But can you patent the software that gens paten by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    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.
  19. Always wondered about this by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    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/
  20. Monkey typists, monkey photographers... by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

    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?

  21. Um, I have prior art for that ... by GrantRobertson · · Score: 1

    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.

  22. Almost anything algorithmic expansion creates is by dakra137 · · Score: 1

    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.