Arguing that algorithms should or should not be patentable vs. whether a patent contains an algorithm are two completely different things.
The problem is not with the concept of patenting specific, workable algorithms, it's that non-algorithm patents - or those that are overly vague - are being issued.
It's a fault with the poor implementation, not the theory. Much like our entire governmental process in general these days...
He's hopeless and his arguments have mostly turned to ad hominem...
You truly can't see the difference between "an algorithm that sorts things" with no further detail, and "an algorithm that sorts things by selecting a pivot, dividing the items into sublists around the pivot and recursively sorting the sublists"?
The first isn't even an algorithm - it's a rough description. If it got patented is was just a (common) mistake of incompetent examiners. An algorithm is a procedure - the point is anyone who is an expert in the field can actually FOLLOW it to solve the problem. Which might be a good start: having expert panels review patents to make sure they solve a specific problem!
Nope, the ALGORITHM patent *IS* "To catch a mice". READ A FUCKING PATENT. While you're googling, also look for "simplified example" or "analogy".
I'm not sure you understand what an algorithm is. It has nothing to do with software per se - it's a 1200 year old mathematical concept.
What you are describing is, like Altrag said, just a "vague patent". It makes no difference if it's hardware or software, the difference is just that patent examiners don't get software, so they approve more vague patents. Software is just telling flexible hardware to do something, obviously.
The ALGORITHM isn't "catch mice", that's just a description, the algorithm is "if input pressure sensor detects pressure on controller pad, activate switch to release lever and squash mouse". You could create a completely DIFFERENT algorithm to catch mice that says (oversimplification) "if video recognition classifies object in location on floor as mouse, apply 1000V to pad". And guess what, neither of those inventors would be infringing each other's patents.
And speaking of ASICs, FPGAs, etc - I used to work on FPGA compilers that could take a software description of an algorithm and turn it into a hardware version to be programmed into a chip.
Summary: vague patents are bad no matter the eventual physical implementation. Requiring SPECIFIC algorithms (no matter whether they can run on a GP CPU or custom silicon is the key.
You could argue everything in the world boils down to math and physics, and that ALL patents should therefore be invalid.
That's a pretty obvious red herring.
Exactly, that was my point...
c) They have absurdly long lifespans. 20 years may be reasonable for real world engineering advances but software changes so fast that 20 months might be closer to a useful exclusion period.
Totally agree - my general argument on software patents is that they should be valid for enough time to give a company a clear advantage in the marketplace, but not enough to completely stifle competition for decades. Even 5 years is probably ok, if not ideal.
One thing you didn't mention about shorter SW patents that's also key: it most invalidates patent trolling as a business. The vast majority of trolls acquired (what most people thought were) nearly useless patents and used their teams of lawyers to analyze them and find applications that were completely unintended by the inventor. If you limit the patent to 3-5 years vs 20, they won't be able to submarine them and sue companies a a decade later.
This does nothing to reduce corporate risk as all the companies are all wholly owned subsidiaries.
Of course it does. That's the entire purpose of corporations! Limited liability means the owners have, say it: LIMITED LIABILITY. Doesn't matter if it's 100,000 shareholders or 1. The shareholder(s) are not liable for outstanding debts of that corporation, and if it declares bankruptcy the shareholders won't lose any more than the their shares. Just because those shares are private held doesn't mean it's much different.
Same reason Donald Trump can have 4 companies he owns declare bankruptcy and still be worth billions. He's a douche, but he (or his lawyers) understands US corporate law. Unlike you...
Same reason Warren Buffet manages to convince his shareholders to STFU. The more separate companies the harder it becomes to target one bad decision.
Of course that means Google really needs to add "Google Term Life Insurance" subsitiatry. That way they can get the insurance float (like BRK.A) to actually fund their immortality projects so their life insurance never needs to pay off!
That's true, but it's not really about lawsuits, it's about investments. Direct shareholders don't like investments into things like longevity and virtual reality that may only pay off in 10, 50, 100 years. This way they can get people to focus on the giant Google ads cash cow and not the "we will record your brain to an AI or solve cell death" sci-fi projects.
I agree with almost everything you said. The problem (much like the problem of the 2nd Amendment and cheap handguns/assault rifles) is that the Founding Fathers didn't comprehend TV, the Internet, and multibillionaires who could attempt to buy elections.
So, it will take a Constitutional amendment to fix the political process and remove money as the #1 factor in elections. Which is fine (if nigh impossible given the process for proposing and ratifying amendments).
Or pass a law saying that corps are not people, need to act somewhat responsibly and only have rights/privileges specifically granted to them.
Except that was also a decision of the Supreme Court. (You do realize there is no "Corporations Are People Act"? The whole concept is based on a series of Supreme Court rulings).
Serious change to corporate legal status is likely going to require a Constitutional amendment. So, pretty much impossible. (That said I'd support it - I'm just a realist...)
You could argue everything in the world boils down to math and physics, and that ALL patents should therefore be invalid.
But honestly - if someone IS going to patent software at all, a novel *algorithm" is one of the first things that should be allowed since it's actually a specific IMPLEMENTATION of an idea. The really shitty patents are those that just patent semi-abstract ideas (which shouldn't be allowed by patent rules anyway) or obvious user interface elements (electronic TV program guides, rounded corners...)
That's one thing I find so funny about all of the cheesy ads you see like "learn how Warren Buffet makes money", "invest like Buffet", etc. While there definitely lessons that can be learned (consider stocks good dividend, those with a solid product vs speculation, go for long term value, etc) in the end if you *really* want to invest like Buffet you need to buy struggling companies and make them profitable. Good luck for 99.99% of the investors out there:)
Though I guess technically buying BRK.B (BRK.A if you have a couple hundred grand lying around) would mean you are investing exactly like Buffet. Hardly requires an expensive seminar to learn, that, though...
I would make zero sense financially anytime remotely soon - the new "Google" generates almost ALL of the revenue. They basically spun off all of the long term risky plays (their longevity and biotech research, Google X, Google Ventures) into separate companies. That way they can reduce their risk to the cash cow that is Google search/ads/apps.
Except that the "Google" division - which contains search, apps, Android, and ads - is still nearly all of their revenue.
Based on the divisions they spun off - Life Sciences, Calico (longevity project), Google X, Google Ventures - it seems like it's more of an effort to separate out the big profit center from the longer term projects that aren't directly generating revenue (ie. short term shareholder value).
It's going to let them invest in these really interesting long term projects without shareholders bitching about the risk. Which is awesome, and really does show they are running the company differently than the usual tech behemoths. Just think if HP, IBM, Microsoft, etc had done this *properly* at their peaks (vs spinning off valuable businesses as entirely separate companies like HP did, or repeatedly shuffling the deck chairs like Microsoft keeps dong) - they might still be relevant.
2) Anyway, you're misrepresenting how joint ownership works. When a corporation has more than one shareholder, rules are decided among them for how its property is managed. Nobody then gets to flout those rules based on how much of the corporation they own.
No, the OP AC was misrepresenting it - that's why I called it a horrible analogy! I agree it doesn't make sense.
Sure - that's how many condo complexes work, of course. And many townhouses share a driveway with two garage doors. Evenated communities (some with really nice houses) or rural areas often have shared driveways or even roads that can are private and shared.
The German authorities tried to catch the bear . . . but it was too smart. And it was aggressive. And near children.
Sorry but seriously? "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" is one of the most overused/. memes ever. OH MY GOD IT'S NEAR CHILDREN, CALL THE FINNS! Not that I understand what "children" have to do with an aggressive bear - would it be any different that it was near "adults"? And WTF do children have to do with anything?! Did the bear live under a playground slide?!? And - I'm pretty sure if Ze Germans really wanted to kill one bear they could.
Oh, and, you don't get it:
You are equating giving someone a ride without a license to murdering your neighbor's dog?
It depends if you neighbor's dog kills a child, or some of your livestock.
Except you didn't say that, in fact you said the exact opposite. OBVIOUSLY the police would respond to a dog that killed a child or another animal. In fact in any city I have lived in police/animal control services would respond quickly to a dog injuring (or even threatening) either, let alone killing.
So your whole point is based on a silly made up situation, since you said "if I was living in the US" but also admitted you actually live in Europe.
I don't even disagree that the Finnish government should be able to legislate whatever they want. I was just pointing out how bad your analogies were:)
No it's not. And if you don't even know the term (which is "entrapment"), why should anyone pay attention to your legal mastery?
Entrapment only applies if the police induced someone to commit a crime that they would have been unlikely to commit otherwise. The very act of signing up as an Uber driver throws that argument out the window.
And it's even less entrapment than asking a drug dealer to buy drugs. In this case the rider doesn't even choose the driver, Uber does.
What is it with all of the horrible analogies on this topic today? You are equating giving someone a ride without a license to murdering your neighbor's dog?
And as far as "Finnish hunters" - I'm not a big fan of hunting (especially trophy hunting like bears) but in the US there are upwards of 40,000 bears killed by hunters every year. Finland issued about 140 bear hunting permits last year, while Minnesota alone issued almost 4000.
Slashdot Mirror
but patents AREN'T just one specific algorithm
Arguing that algorithms should or should not be patentable vs. whether a patent contains an algorithm are two completely different things.
The problem is not with the concept of patenting specific, workable algorithms, it's that non-algorithm patents - or those that are overly vague - are being issued.
It's a fault with the poor implementation, not the theory. Much like our entire governmental process in general these days...
He's hopeless and his arguments have mostly turned to ad hominem...
You truly can't see the difference between "an algorithm that sorts things" with no further detail, and "an algorithm that sorts things by selecting a pivot, dividing the items into sublists around the pivot and recursively sorting the sublists"?
The first isn't even an algorithm - it's a rough description. If it got patented is was just a (common) mistake of incompetent examiners. An algorithm is a procedure - the point is anyone who is an expert in the field can actually FOLLOW it to solve the problem. Which might be a good start: having expert panels review patents to make sure they solve a specific problem!
Nope, the ALGORITHM patent *IS* "To catch a mice". READ A FUCKING PATENT. While you're googling, also look for "simplified example" or "analogy".
I'm not sure you understand what an algorithm is. It has nothing to do with software per se - it's a 1200 year old mathematical concept.
What you are describing is, like Altrag said, just a "vague patent". It makes no difference if it's hardware or software, the difference is just that patent examiners don't get software, so they approve more vague patents. Software is just telling flexible hardware to do something, obviously.
The ALGORITHM isn't "catch mice", that's just a description, the algorithm is "if input pressure sensor detects pressure on controller pad, activate switch to release lever and squash mouse". You could create a completely DIFFERENT algorithm to catch mice that says (oversimplification) "if video recognition classifies object in location on floor as mouse, apply 1000V to pad". And guess what, neither of those inventors would be infringing each other's patents.
And speaking of ASICs, FPGAs, etc - I used to work on FPGA compilers that could take a software description of an algorithm and turn it into a hardware version to be programmed into a chip.
Summary: vague patents are bad no matter the eventual physical implementation. Requiring SPECIFIC algorithms (no matter whether they can run on a GP CPU or custom silicon is the key.
You could argue everything in the world boils down to math and physics, and that ALL patents should therefore be invalid.
That's a pretty obvious red herring.
Exactly, that was my point...
c) They have absurdly long lifespans. 20 years may be reasonable for real world engineering advances but software changes so fast that 20 months might be closer to a useful exclusion period.
Totally agree - my general argument on software patents is that they should be valid for enough time to give a company a clear advantage in the marketplace, but not enough to completely stifle competition for decades. Even 5 years is probably ok, if not ideal.
One thing you didn't mention about shorter SW patents that's also key: it most invalidates patent trolling as a business. The vast majority of trolls acquired (what most people thought were) nearly useless patents and used their teams of lawyers to analyze them and find applications that were completely unintended by the inventor. If you limit the patent to 3-5 years vs 20, they won't be able to submarine them and sue companies a a decade later.
This does nothing to reduce corporate risk as all the companies are all wholly owned subsidiaries.
Of course it does. That's the entire purpose of corporations! Limited liability means the owners have, say it: LIMITED LIABILITY. Doesn't matter if it's 100,000 shareholders or 1. The shareholder(s) are not liable for outstanding debts of that corporation, and if it declares bankruptcy the shareholders won't lose any more than the their shares. Just because those shares are private held doesn't mean it's much different.
Same reason Donald Trump can have 4 companies he owns declare bankruptcy and still be worth billions. He's a douche, but he (or his lawyers) understands US corporate law. Unlike you...
Either way - are you using GE as an example of not "ending well"?!?
I'm pretty sure #8 in the Fortune 500 does not indicate a loss of focus. Google would kill to be #8, they are currently at #40.
Same reason Warren Buffet manages to convince his shareholders to STFU. The more separate companies the harder it becomes to target one bad decision.
Of course that means Google really needs to add "Google Term Life Insurance" subsitiatry. That way they can get the insurance float (like BRK.A) to actually fund their immortality projects so their life insurance never needs to pay off!
That's true, but it's not really about lawsuits, it's about investments. Direct shareholders don't like investments into things like longevity and virtual reality that may only pay off in 10, 50, 100 years. This way they can get people to focus on the giant Google ads cash cow and not the "we will record your brain to an AI or solve cell death" sci-fi projects.
I agree with almost everything you said. The problem (much like the problem of the 2nd Amendment and cheap handguns/assault rifles) is that the Founding Fathers didn't comprehend TV, the Internet, and multibillionaires who could attempt to buy elections.
So, it will take a Constitutional amendment to fix the political process and remove money as the #1 factor in elections. Which is fine (if nigh impossible given the process for proposing and ratifying amendments).
Or pass a law saying that corps are not people, need to act somewhat responsibly and only have rights/privileges specifically granted to them.
Except that was also a decision of the Supreme Court. (You do realize there is no "Corporations Are People Act"? The whole concept is based on a series of Supreme Court rulings).
For those who like reading the (interesting) details: http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/...
Serious change to corporate legal status is likely going to require a Constitutional amendment. So, pretty much impossible. (That said I'd support it - I'm just a realist...)
Yep, generally only when he "gets caught".
Chances of Congress cooperating with him: 0.01%
Yeah, but that's still 1000x the chance he has of actually getting elected...
You could argue everything in the world boils down to math and physics, and that ALL patents should therefore be invalid.
But honestly - if someone IS going to patent software at all, a novel *algorithm" is one of the first things that should be allowed since it's actually a specific IMPLEMENTATION of an idea. The really shitty patents are those that just patent semi-abstract ideas (which shouldn't be allowed by patent rules anyway) or obvious user interface elements (electronic TV program guides, rounded corners...)
That's one thing I find so funny about all of the cheesy ads you see like "learn how Warren Buffet makes money", "invest like Buffet", etc. While there definitely lessons that can be learned (consider stocks good dividend, those with a solid product vs speculation, go for long term value, etc) in the end if you *really* want to invest like Buffet you need to buy struggling companies and make them profitable. Good luck for 99.99% of the investors out there :)
Though I guess technically buying BRK.B (BRK.A if you have a couple hundred grand lying around) would mean you are investing exactly like Buffet. Hardly requires an expensive seminar to learn, that, though...
I would make zero sense financially anytime remotely soon - the new "Google" generates almost ALL of the revenue. They basically spun off all of the long term risky plays (their longevity and biotech research, Google X, Google Ventures) into separate companies. That way they can reduce their risk to the cash cow that is Google search/ads/apps.
Except that the "Google" division - which contains search, apps, Android, and ads - is still nearly all of their revenue.
Based on the divisions they spun off - Life Sciences, Calico (longevity project), Google X, Google Ventures - it seems like it's more of an effort to separate out the big profit center from the longer term projects that aren't directly generating revenue (ie. short term shareholder value).
It's going to let them invest in these really interesting long term projects without shareholders bitching about the risk. Which is awesome, and really does show they are running the company differently than the usual tech behemoths. Just think if HP, IBM, Microsoft, etc had done this *properly* at their peaks (vs spinning off valuable businesses as entirely separate companies like HP did, or repeatedly shuffling the deck chairs like Microsoft keeps dong) - they might still be relevant.
2) Anyway, you're misrepresenting how joint ownership works. When a corporation has more than one shareholder, rules are decided among them for how its property is managed. Nobody then gets to flout those rules based on how much of the corporation they own.
No, the OP AC was misrepresenting it - that's why I called it a horrible analogy! I agree it doesn't make sense.
Sure - that's how many condo complexes work, of course. And many townhouses share a driveway with two garage doors. Evenated communities (some with really nice houses) or rural areas often have shared driveways or even roads that can are private and shared.
Well, you learned something new today, congratulations!
So, if I'm an "incompetent liar", does that mean I told the truth?
The German authorities tried to catch the bear . . . but it was too smart. And it was aggressive. And near children.
Sorry but seriously? "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" is one of the most overused /. memes ever. OH MY GOD IT'S NEAR CHILDREN, CALL THE FINNS! Not that I understand what "children" have to do with an aggressive bear - would it be any different that it was near "adults"? And WTF do children have to do with anything?! Did the bear live under a playground slide?!? And - I'm pretty sure if Ze Germans really wanted to kill one bear they could.
Oh, and, you don't get it:
You are equating giving someone a ride without a license to murdering your neighbor's dog?
It depends if you neighbor's dog kills a child, or some of your livestock.
Except you didn't say that, in fact you said the exact opposite. OBVIOUSLY the police would respond to a dog that killed a child or another animal. In fact in any city I have lived in police/animal control services would respond quickly to a dog injuring (or even threatening) either, let alone killing.
So your whole point is based on a silly made up situation, since you said "if I was living in the US" but also admitted you actually live in Europe.
I don't even disagree that the Finnish government should be able to legislate whatever they want. I was just pointing out how bad your analogies were :)
I wasn't an argument, it was a joke, moron.
No it's not. And if you don't even know the term (which is "entrapment"), why should anyone pay attention to your legal mastery?
Entrapment only applies if the police induced someone to commit a crime that they would have been unlikely to commit otherwise. The very act of signing up as an Uber driver throws that argument out the window.
And it's even less entrapment than asking a drug dealer to buy drugs. In this case the rider doesn't even choose the driver, Uber does.
What is it with all of the horrible analogies on this topic today? You are equating giving someone a ride without a license to murdering your neighbor's dog?
And as far as "Finnish hunters" - I'm not a big fan of hunting (especially trophy hunting like bears) but in the US there are upwards of 40,000 bears killed by hunters every year. Finland issued about 140 bear hunting permits last year, while Minnesota alone issued almost 4000.
Yeah, an anarchist thinks the law shouldn't apply to anybody, while a libertarian thinks the law should not apply to him.