That's a nice summary of the first of 12 claims. Claim 1 basically outlines the method of implementation and doesn't really contain much "novelty," but you can't really make the following 11 claims describing what the program does, unless you've said you have a program.
That's irrelevant. Claims 1 to 12 have all been granted, so each and every one of them defines a monopoly which has been granted to the applicant.
Subsequent claims describe an "expert system" for providing advice or automating decision-making. eg, Word's grammar-checker.
As the first claim explains, "expert system" is used here as synonym for "an if-test with multiple conditions". In this sense, pretty much every single useful program I've ever written contains multiple "expert systems".
It may still not be all that "novel," but it's an awful lot more specific than "a program that applies AND, OR and NOT logic to database results and stores them in memory"
Even though what you describe above is a monopoly on its own which has been granted, let's look at a couple more:
claim 2: the data and the results of the if-tests are bi-directionally linked to each other.
claim 3: the data, if-tests and results are stored in separate tables of relational databases and linked to each other
claim 4: same as claim 1, except that you now also get a "weighing factor" in case the if-test returns true, and when combining multiple if's you also combine those weighing factors.
claim 5: the user can define how the weighing factors should be combined
claim 6: the user can only use some predefined functions to combine the weighing factors
claim 7: the weighing factor is used to define confidence in the result, and how to combine confidences (AND = minimum, OR = maximum, NOT = inverse)
claim 8-12: sorry, but I've wasted enough time on this nonsense
I still completely fail to see how this is "an awful lot more specific", novel or innovative than the first claim. Not to mention that everything which is supposed to be innovative is plain maths or logic.
Even if the patent were valid, the goal of the patent system is not "to enable small guys to gets lots of money from the big guys", even if said big guys are doing something the small guys thought of first. The fact that this patent itself is horse crap (although I have yet to see a software patent which isn't, to be honest) is just something which adds injury to the insult.
This is how the patent system should work. A guy came up with an idea and tried to make his buck.
Actually, this is independent of how the patent system should work. The only goal of the patent system should be to promote innovation. It is not there to "help the little guy get his share from large companies" any more than it is there to "help large companies crush little guys with their huge portfolios".
Only if the chance that other people would come up with this on their own is very small, and if the "original discoverer" would not publish it without getting a 20 year monopoly in return, and if the downsides of this 20 year monopoly don't outweigh the upsides of disclosure, then there could be a justification for granting the patent. On a macro-economic scale, this is not true for software patents.
In this particular case, it's about patent US 5,701,400. Let's have a look at claim 1, which as a whole consists of a single sentence of 506 words. Below, you can find a summary of the meat of that claim:
a program in execution by said computer for controlling operations thereof for receiving user input defining one or more analysis rules to be applied to user specified data from said memory,
We have a program with rules operating on data
each said analysis rule being a user defined arithmetic and/or logic test to be applied to user specified items of said data and for controlling said computer to receive and store user entered data defining the alphanumeric text of a diagnostic statement associated with each true result of each said analysis rule,
Each rule is a mathematical or logical expression returning true or false, and its outcomes are associated with text strings (i.e., if-statements with a string as result)
each said diagnostic statement comprised of a user defined alphanumeric text string which the user can program to define the significance of the true result, its relevance or any other expression which provides meaning to the user of the true result of the analysis rule, and for controlling said computer to receive user input controlling which of said analysis rules are to be applied to said data,
The user can specify the "then" and the "else" outcomes of these "if" statements.
and for applying said analysis rules so designated to the data designated by said user and returning a true or false result for each analysis rule so applied depending upon the state of the data to which each analysis rule was applied,
You can apply the if-statements to different inputs, and the output will depend on the input
and for each true result returned by an analysis rule, controlling said computer to store in a file in said memory the user programmed text of a diagnostic statement associated with each true result as a diagnostic in a diagnostic database,
Those earlier mentioned text strings are stored in memory once those if-statements are evaluated.
and for controlling said computer to receive and store in said memory user input defining one or more expert tests, each expert test comprising a user defined arithmetic and/or logic statement to be applied to one or more diagnostics selected by user input from the diagnostics stored in said diagnostic database, said arithmetic and/or logic statement comprised of mathematical operators and/or logical operators from any logic set such as predicate logic or Boolean logic including at least the AND, OR and NOT functions, each said expert test returning either a true or false result, and for controlling said computer to receive us
You're quote the summary paragraph, which is (largely) irrelevant as far as what is covered by the patent. You have to look at the claims. The independent claims (claims which do not refer to another claim) are the broadest, and often claim 1 is the broadest of them all. In this case:
1. A computer program product for use with a computer system, the computer system executing a first process and operatively connectable to a second process and a server over a computer network, the computer program product comprising:
a computer usable medium having program code embodied in the medium, the program code comprising:
program code for transmitting to the server a network protocol address received by the first process following connection to the computer network;
program code for transmitting, to the server, a query as to whether the second process is connected to the computer network;
program code for receiving a network protocol address of the second process from the server, when the second process is connected to the computer network; and
program code, responsive to the network protocol address of the second process, for establishing a point-to-point communication link between the first process and the second process over the computer network.
It's indeed quite possible that IRC is prior art for this. And although it corresponds roughly to the summary paragraph in this case, this is often not the case.
That said, what's most objectionable about this is that it's a software patent, not so much whether or not it's new or non-obvious. After all, there's no macro-economic rationale for having software patents, just some legalistic arguments and some based on "natural rights" (although the patent system is an economic policy tool, and not something to "reward" or "justly treat" people; "sweat of the brow" is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for obtaining a patent).
Don't underestimate the Chinese' understanding of IPR (article written by a senior researcher at the Chinese Ministry of Commerce). They know very well it's in the best case a two-edged sword, and that the US is asking for things they are reviewing themselves...
The EU is planning to make all "intentional" and "commercial scale" copyright and patent infringements a criminal offence. Note that in criminal law "intentional" does not necessarily mean "kowingly infringing", but simply that the act (which happens to be infringing) is carried out consciously and not accidentally.
There is no such thing as a "computer-implemented invention", except in the imagination of the EPO. The only thing you can implement in a computer is software ("as such", if you like). And software is not an invention according to the European Patent Convention.
Therefore, the interpretation of the Technical Board of Appeals, namely that "software executed by a computer" is a "computer-implemented invention", is as logical as it is fallacious. It's logical, since the only thing you can implement in a computer is software. It's fallacious, because software cannot be an invention (computer-implemented or not).
If you are thinking of ABS braking systems (novel use of measuring friction energy to prevent slipping) and things like that: those are better described using the term "computer-aided invention" or similar, as proposed by several MEPs back in the day of the swpat directive.
You cannot implement brakes or washing machines inside a computer, but when you invent such things, the operation of those things most likely will be in someway aided by the use of a computer (running software, obviously).
Yes, that's how the EPO currently interprets it, the same way as the interpret the exclusion of computer programs: a computer programs as such is not patentable, but "include" it in a computer which executes it and it automagically becomes patentable (because it's now a "computer executing a computer-implemented method", and no longer a "computer program" in their eyes).
In case of your "encryption device", the actual contribution to the art (and thus what enables you to get your patent) is still the novel mathematical method. A device built around that would be patentable subject matter, but in itself isn't particularly inventive in (all the inventiveness lies in the mathematical method).
Can any supporters of the EPO's stance give examples of things which would have been patentable had the EPC not explicitly excluded computer programs from being regarded as inventions, but which the EPO treat as non-patentable as a result of that exclusion?
Well, I'm everything but a supporter of the EPO's stance, but one example could possibly the source code or machine of a program on its own (i.e., not stored on a disc or in memory).
Now, don't ask me what the point of such a patent would be (after all, a program is always stored somewhere), why someone would want to pay for something like that (after all, exactly the same thing is already covered by copyright) and therefore why anyone would bother with putting such an exclusion into law, but that's how the EPO's Technical Board of Appeals currently interprets the term "computer program" as it appears in the European Patent Convention.
Europe has never allowed 'software patents' instead, the allow "Computer Implemented Inventions"
And what is the difference? According to the European Patent Office's Technical Board of Appeal, as soon as you execute software on a computer, whatever the software does is a "computer-implemented invention" (see the top of p. 13 of the pdf file, the page numbered 11).
When was the last time you saw a US software patent which was not on what software does when it's executed, but on the source or machine code? Right. IOW, there is no inherent difference between software patents and patents on "computer-implemented inventions".
Read the letter again. It actually rips the Commission for keeping on insisting on the EPO practice (which allows software patents). The Commission's answer is pretty vague, and only mildly better than what they spewed in the past. Still, it is potentially a (small) step in the right direction.
The directive mandates recording all numbers you call, when you call, for how long you call and where you are during the phone call (in case of mobile phones). It also mandates logging the from- and to- addresses of all emails you send, and recording of all VoIP call from/to data. The directive does not require a court order before the data can be accessed, and it can be accessed in the investigation of each "serious crime" (whereby each member state is free to decide for itself what constitutes a "serious crime").
And don't try to put it down to "those Eurocrats", because it was pushed through in particular by the UK presidency. All in the name of battling them terrorists, of course.
and how it relates to the volatile keyword (which I've rarely ever seen in Java code -- and if its not there, the code is NOT thread safe)
That's not true. If all threads use synchronized accesses to access a field, you don't need volatile. See e.g. here:
The volatile modifier requests the Java VM to always access the shared copy of the variable so the its most current value is always read. If two or more threads access a member variable, AND one or more threads might change that variable's value, AND ALL of the threads do not use synchronization (methods or blocks) to read and/or write the value, then that member variable must be declared volatile to ensure all threads see the changed value.
I assume a synchronization operation in Java implicitly acts as a memory barrier.
Turning away from the root of the problem is such a bad idea I don't know where to start.
It's like creating a community for better tax evaluation.
I couldn't agree more. The system is obviously broken. So what do you do: encourage society to pour even more money into it (time = money) in order to fix the worst problems. It's not even sure that after all this extra work, you'll actually have a properly functioning patent system.
I agree. I was merely pointing out that it was interesting how Apple picked up the kernel despite it's well known (and publicized) problems. I am neither saying it was a good choice or a bad choice. Merely that it was an odd choice.
I guess the main reason was human capital: they got a lot of people from NeXT who knew that kernel inside out.
I don't consider it a "hack to make a micro kernel faster", because the thing no longer is a micro kernel. They made something different out of it, so it's not an example of how someone made a micro kernel faster.
Meanwhile, the performance of OS X sucks like a Hoover
Possibly (although my G5 is fast enough for anything I do), but it won't have anything to do at all with micro kernels, because Mac OS X does not use a micro kernel (and no public Mac OS X release ever has used a micro kernel).
The entire Mac OS X kernel, including the BSD personality, runs in one address space. Messages are plain function calls. See the link I posted earlier for more info.
Oddly, NeXT (and later Apple) picked up the Mach kernel and used it in their products. Performance was fixed partly through a series of hacks, and partly through raw horsepower.
No, Apple partly "fixed" it by making Mac OS X' kernel run in onebig address space, and "message passing" in the kernel now consists of plain function calls.
Sorenson 3 was state of the art in Quicktime 3. Most new Quicktime stuff uses H.264. Sorenson lingered around for too long though, because Apple's MPEG4 encoder was so crappy.
No release version of Mac OS X ever used a microkernel. The kernel uses mach code, but all of it (including the BSD personality) runs in one address space. It's just the logical compartmentalization that's still there. E.g. mach messages inside the kernel are plain function calls in OS X.
QuickTime is open, but the codecs people use to encode the content they put in a QuickTime container aren't necessarily. That said, at least VLC (and probably mplayer too) can perfectly play H.264 video and AAC audio without the need for any binary codecs.
But on second thoughts, all this will encourage is many more mindless software patents by the big firms to cover their asses.
First of all, that won't help them defend against patent holding companies (also known as patent trolls).
Secondly, they actually paint a nice shiny target on themselves by getting all those defensive patents, making themselves more likely to be sued (see the Q&A at the bottom of the page)
Slashdot Mirror
That's irrelevant. Claims 1 to 12 have all been granted, so each and every one of them defines a monopoly which has been granted to the applicant.
As the first claim explains, "expert system" is used here as synonym for "an if-test with multiple conditions". In this sense, pretty much every single useful program I've ever written contains multiple "expert systems".
Even though what you describe above is a monopoly on its own which has been granted, let's look at a couple more:
I still completely fail to see how this is "an awful lot more specific", novel or innovative than the first claim. Not to mention that everything which is supposed to be innovative is plain maths or logic.
Even if the patent were valid, the goal of the patent system is not "to enable small guys to gets lots of money from the big guys", even if said big guys are doing something the small guys thought of first. The fact that this patent itself is horse crap (although I have yet to see a software patent which isn't, to be honest) is just something which adds injury to the insult.
Actually, this is independent of how the patent system should work. The only goal of the patent system should be to promote innovation. It is not there to "help the little guy get his share from large companies" any more than it is there to "help large companies crush little guys with their huge portfolios".
Only if the chance that other people would come up with this on their own is very small, and if the "original discoverer" would not publish it without getting a 20 year monopoly in return, and if the downsides of this 20 year monopoly don't outweigh the upsides of disclosure, then there could be a justification for granting the patent. On a macro-economic scale, this is not true for software patents.
In this particular case, it's about patent US 5,701,400. Let's have a look at claim 1, which as a whole consists of a single sentence of 506 words. Below, you can find a summary of the meat of that claim:
We have a program with rules operating on data
Each rule is a mathematical or logical expression returning true or false, and its outcomes are associated with text strings (i.e., if-statements with a string as result)
The user can specify the "then" and the "else" outcomes of these "if" statements.
You can apply the if-statements to different inputs, and the output will depend on the input
Those earlier mentioned text strings are stored in memory once those if-statements are evaluated.
It's indeed quite possible that IRC is prior art for this. And although it corresponds roughly to the summary paragraph in this case, this is often not the case.
That said, what's most objectionable about this is that it's a software patent, not so much whether or not it's new or non-obvious. After all, there's no macro-economic rationale for having software patents, just some legalistic arguments and some based on "natural rights" (although the patent system is an economic policy tool, and not something to "reward" or "justly treat" people; "sweat of the brow" is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for obtaining a patent).
Don't underestimate the Chinese' understanding of IPR (article written by a senior researcher at the Chinese Ministry of Commerce). They know very well it's in the best case a two-edged sword, and that the US is asking for things they are reviewing themselves...
The EU is planning to make all "intentional" and "commercial scale" copyright and patent infringements a criminal offence. Note that in criminal law "intentional" does not necessarily mean "kowingly infringing", but simply that the act (which happens to be infringing) is carried out consciously and not accidentally.
Therefore, the interpretation of the Technical Board of Appeals, namely that "software executed by a computer" is a "computer-implemented invention", is as logical as it is fallacious. It's logical, since the only thing you can implement in a computer is software. It's fallacious, because software cannot be an invention (computer-implemented or not).
If you are thinking of ABS braking systems (novel use of measuring friction energy to prevent slipping) and things like that: those are better described using the term "computer-aided invention" or similar, as proposed by several MEPs back in the day of the swpat directive.
You cannot implement brakes or washing machines inside a computer, but when you invent such things, the operation of those things most likely will be in someway aided by the use of a computer (running software, obviously).
Yes, that's how the EPO currently interprets it, the same way as the interpret the exclusion of computer programs: a computer programs as such is not patentable, but "include" it in a computer which executes it and it automagically becomes patentable (because it's now a "computer executing a computer-implemented method", and no longer a "computer program" in their eyes).
In case of your "encryption device", the actual contribution to the art (and thus what enables you to get your patent) is still the novel mathematical method. A device built around that would be patentable subject matter, but in itself isn't particularly inventive in (all the inventiveness lies in the mathematical method).
It's pure sophistry.
Now, don't ask me what the point of such a patent would be (after all, a program is always stored somewhere), why someone would want to pay for something like that (after all, exactly the same thing is already covered by copyright) and therefore why anyone would bother with putting such an exclusion into law, but that's how the EPO's Technical Board of Appeals currently interprets the term "computer program" as it appears in the European Patent Convention.
When was the last time you saw a US software patent which was not on what software does when it's executed, but on the source or machine code? Right. IOW, there is no inherent difference between software patents and patents on "computer-implemented inventions".
Read the letter again. It actually rips the Commission for keeping on insisting on the EPO practice (which allows software patents). The Commission's answer is pretty vague, and only mildly better than what they spewed in the past. Still, it is potentially a (small) step in the right direction.
The directive mandates recording all numbers you call, when you call, for how long you call and where you are during the phone call (in case of mobile phones). It also mandates logging the from- and to- addresses of all emails you send, and recording of all VoIP call from/to data. The directive does not require a court order before the data can be accessed, and it can be accessed in the investigation of each "serious crime" (whereby each member state is free to decide for itself what constitutes a "serious crime").
And don't try to put it down to "those Eurocrats", because it was pushed through in particular by the UK presidency. All in the name of battling them terrorists, of course.
I don't consider it a "hack to make a micro kernel faster", because the thing no longer is a micro kernel. They made something different out of it, so it's not an example of how someone made a micro kernel faster.
The entire Mac OS X kernel, including the BSD personality, runs in one address space. Messages are plain function calls. See the link I posted earlier for more info.
It depends on what you call healthy, I guess. Afaik Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.
Sorenson 3 was state of the art in Quicktime 3. Most new Quicktime stuff uses H.264. Sorenson lingered around for too long though, because Apple's MPEG4 encoder was so crappy.
Here's some things if you care to learn more about Mac OS X' kernel structure and the non-microkernel Mach: message 1, message 2.
No release version of Mac OS X ever used a microkernel. The kernel uses mach code, but all of it (including the BSD personality) runs in one address space. It's just the logical compartmentalization that's still there. E.g. mach messages inside the kernel are plain function calls in OS X.
QuickTime is open, but the codecs people use to encode the content they put in a QuickTime container aren't necessarily. That said, at least VLC (and probably mplayer too) can perfectly play H.264 video and AAC audio without the need for any binary codecs.
Secondly, they actually paint a nice shiny target on themselves by getting all those defensive patents, making themselves more likely to be sued (see the Q&A at the bottom of the page)