Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patents and Quantum Computing

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the stuff-to-read dept.

Paul Guinnessy writes "Will the patents taken out on quantum computers expire before such computers are ever built? I have surveyed all the top researchers in quantum computing to find out. The results have been published in Physics World magazine. "

7 of 24 comments (clear)

  1. Quantum Computers vs. Perpetual Motion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Here's a simple solution that should have been
    in place before things got out of hand...

    The US Patent Office recieved so many applications
    regarding perpetual motion 'machines' that they
    put a rule into effect stating that all such
    applications must include a working model.

    I think that should apply for ALL patent applications.
    Perhaps a model need not be included, but a working
    model must exist somewhere. How's that sound?

    --

  2. Utterly missing the point by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 5
    Most of the first responses are utterly missing the point. No one has attempted to patent an as-yet-nonexistent quantum computer, so arguing that they shouldn't do so is ludicrous. What has been patented is a number of little gadgets that do in fact work, but would only be a part of a quantum computer.

    Another important point is that these components might be useful in some other invention long before a full fledged quantum computer is created.

    Whether hardware patents should exist in the first place really is an utterly different issue. There must be hundreds of new patents issued every day, including design patents for new car body styles, but I don't hear people screaming of the injustice of it all every time GM cranks out yet another SUV.

    Lastly, this article, and its posting on Slashdot, disappoints me for a different reason: some days ago I offered a story on a small breakthrough in quantum computing that is featured in the current issue of Nature -- a working externally controlled quantum bit.

    But Slashdot prefers to run something cynical. I didn't see Paul Guinnessy interview the NEC researchers who made this latest breakthrough to see whether they thought that quantum computers were more than 20 years away or not.

    I'd be surprised if someone didn't have at least a limited quantum computer in only 5-10 years, myself -- I'm a technology optimist.

    --
    Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
  3. Sheesh... by Bilbo · · Score: 3
    On the one end, we've got people trying to take out patents on technology that has already been around for years. On the other end, we've got patents about to expire on devices that haven't even been built yet.

    One might get the idea that patents are becoming less and less applicable in this day and age... ;-)

    --
    Your Servant, B. Baggins
  4. patents should not be possible yet by bug · · Score: 3

    First of all, IANAL.

    Except for patents on the building blocks of quantum computing (which is where the current state of technology is, just trying to get a couple of qbits to do *something*), I don't believe that patents should be possible here. One of the fundamental requirements for a patent is that the device actually works. We are obviously not there yet. To my knowledge, the only thing that we have right now are simulators of quantum computers on top of standard computers. I'd have to think that such *extremely* preliminary research results should not be patentable. Comments?

  5. Huh huh, you said patent by dclydew · · Score: 2

    Here's a perfect example of what's wrong with the way patents work....

    First, we have a company attempting to patent P3P, and possibly suceeding....

    Now we have these scientests patenting parts and pieces of things, with no whole product. How silly.... Why would someone patent part of a solution, esp. when the solution is gonna be very hard and quite possibly take a very long time. Not smart.

    The entire idea of patents needs to be thrown out, and replaced with something that protects inventors... but doesn't result in silly issues like these beautiful examples. Patenting software should just be tossed out... let them copyright it or better yet GPL it. Parts of inventions should be tossed out... if you don't have something real, you shouldn't have a patent....

    No doubt, none of this will happen (at least for awhile). Companies see patents as a way of protecting their interests, as well as their pocketbooks. Long live their deities, Almighty Dollar, Euro, and all the rest...

    --
    Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
  6. Patenting the Holodeck by messman · · Score: 2

    It is weird that someone can patent an algorithm
    for a type of computer that does not exist and
    it may never exist.
    I guess every gadget in sci-fi books and films
    is patentable too. Is the algorithm used in
    Star Trek's holodeck patented yet?

  7. Defensive patenting. by Claudius · · Score: 3

    Even if the patent expires it still has value in terms of defining prior art, if I'm not mistaken. In 25 years when someone builds a machine to implement Shor's algorithm and then they try to patent both the machine and the idea, then one can point to the original patent and say, "Prior art. You may only patent your machine, but someone else may implement the same algorithm." It's unfortunate that published journal articles containing the algorithms do not seem to suffice for defining prior art, as has been discussed numerous times on /.

    Given a world with numerous patents applied for (and received) for preexisting technology and algorithms, using the patent office defensively in this manner doesn't seem to me to be as bad as the rest of the patent abuse. It just seems like a bit of wasted time on the part of the researchers is all.