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."

Comments

A good strategy

[radl33t]

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

Re:A good strategy

[Kevin Fishburne]

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.

Re:A good strategy

[Sarten-X]

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.

Re:A good strategy

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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!

Simple Fix - Eliminate Patent System

[pubwvj]

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

Just in case

[Opportunist]

anyone needed another proof that the patent system is FUBAR.

Re:How about making patent reviews like PhDs?

[meerling]

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?) :)