I'm explaining the distinctions that exist between copyrights and patents. You copyright a specific work. You patent a certain kind of idea called an invention. It's pretty clear to me what the distinction is between what can be patented and what can be copyrighted.
I found many arguments against software patents in Wikipedia, and interestingly, there is almost no overlap between the discussion in these Slashdot posts and the discussion in that article. The reasons for not allowing software patents given here are idiotic. The reasons given in the Wikipedia article are much more reasonable.
You made an overly broad and sweeping statement, and now you're getting all upset because someone called you on it. The failure is entire on your part.
No, someone misread my statement and then said something boneheaded that he though showed that I was being stupid. I never said any ideas can be patented. I said the only things that are patented are ideas. They are a specific kind of idea called an invention. You can't patent any old idea.
Can anyone provide any source whatsoever that argues cogently that patents on algorithms should not be allowed? The posts here on Slashdot look like a laundry list of lame excuses compiled by crackpots for why they shouldn't be allowed.
I looked up Bilski. It seems to do with patenting business processes. That same article describes at least one specific algorithm was decided to be patentable. You have no idea what you're ranting on about, do you?
I think what you're trying to say is that one opinion is that the only ideas that should be patented are those that are embodied in a physical mechanism. For example, Canada uses this criterion. It would have been far better to link to a source in the first place -- I find Wikipedia's explanations of patent issues to be far less silly than the discussions here. Thanks for finally finding one!
You don't patent a physical mechanism. You patent the idea for a mechanism. No one else can build a separate physical mechanism that matches your idea and then claim it isn't covered by your idea because it's a different physical mechanism. All patents are patents on ideas.
Someone else has tried to argue that patents apply to implementations, but that also doesn't make sense. If a drug company could patent only a specific formulation of a drug, then another company could make its own formulation and claim it isn't covered by the patent.
All inventions are ideas, and inventions are what is patented. All patents are patents on ideas. You can read about how to patent an idea at howtopatentanidea.net.
Then how can a video codec be patented? If you could only patent one particular implementation, then I could implement the codec myself and no one else would have any patent rights to my implementation. Has Groklaw been so wrong all these years?
If there are no patents, what's the incentive for innovation?
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them [inventions], as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.
No, physical things cannot be patented. Drug companies don't patent physical pills. They patent a chemical formula that could be made into a pill, a table, a shot, a spray. Your whole idea of a physical/non-physical dichotomy makes no sense.
Let's say I make two widgets, Widget A and Widget B. Widget A has the first paragraph of Harry Potter and the Philospopher's Stone etched into it. Widget B contains a gear mechanism that is covered by a patent. Both are physical manifestations of an idea. I cannot sell either, but for two entirely different reasons.
You can't patent that idea. You can only patent an idea that can be used in making a product. FAIL on two counts -- not understanding what kinds of ideas can be patented, and not providing a source as I requested. Could you provide a source that discusses this silly idea in more detail?
Books are physical and they are copyrighted, not patented. Your idea that physical things are patented and non-physical things are copyrighted doesn't make any sense.
Inventions (ideas) that can be implemented in many different products are patented. A specific authored work can be copyrighted. Copyrights cover specific manifestations of ideas that have taken a concrete form, such as specific words, musical notes, or lines of computer code. Patents cover general ideas that could implemented in various specific ways.
Because an algorithm is an idea that can be implemented in many different ways, it can be patented. Each specific implementation, for example, programs that implement the algorithm, can be copyrighted.
Copyright restricts your right to copy the information that is copyrighted. A patent does not restrict your right to copy information (i.e. the idea embodied in the patent itself), but restricts your right to produce products that use the patent.
I know there are some radicals that say that we shouldn't have any patents whatsoever, but that would put the brakes on innovation. There would be no drugs developed by for-profit companies, for example. Without any patents on their products, competitors could sell generic versions immediately and they wouldn't be able to recoup R and D costs. Surely there is a happy medium between our currently broken patent system where patents are awarded for obvious ideas, and eradicating all patents. Abolishing patents would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Every patent involves an expression of an idea. A drug is a chemical compound (i.e. an idea about how to arrange atoms), and those can be patented. A machine is an expression of an idea (i.e. an idea of how to arrange gears and pulleys and levers), and those can be patented. I would say that an algorithm is in every sense an invention just as much as a drug or a machine.
Those things are different from mathematical proofs or scientific hypotheses, which are not inventions, in the sense that you cannot do anything with them alone. You must apply them to a situation. They are no good on their own. You cannot put a mathematical proof or scientific hypothesis into a product. You can put a drug or a machine or an algorithm into a product.
I don't buy this "ideas can't be patented" argument. Can you give some sources where is seemingly silly idea is discussed at greater length?
Microsoft is being treated specially because they have a near monopoly on the desktop operating system market, and they have been abusing this monopoly to promote their own products, such as their web browser, their search engine, and their Office suite. Other companies do not have a monopoly in these areas, and therefore they face an uphill battle in attempting to compete against Microsoft. By promoting other browsers, they're trying to level the playing field to allow more competition, which should result in better products.
I can understand why people would be against software patents for obvious ideas, such as the one-click patent. But are these folks against all software patents, no matter how innovative and complex? If so, why? What makes software patents so special that they should not be allowed?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm explaining the distinctions that exist between copyrights and patents. You copyright a specific work. You patent a certain kind of idea called an invention. It's pretty clear to me what the distinction is between what can be patented and what can be copyrighted.
I found many arguments against software patents in Wikipedia, and interestingly, there is almost no overlap between the discussion in these Slashdot posts and the discussion in that article. The reasons for not allowing software patents given here are idiotic. The reasons given in the Wikipedia article are much more reasonable.
No, someone misread my statement and then said something boneheaded that he though showed that I was being stupid. I never said any ideas can be patented. I said the only things that are patented are ideas. They are a specific kind of idea called an invention. You can't patent any old idea.
Can anyone provide any source whatsoever that argues cogently that patents on algorithms should not be allowed? The posts here on Slashdot look like a laundry list of lame excuses compiled by crackpots for why they shouldn't be allowed.
I looked up Bilski. It seems to do with patenting business processes. That same article describes at least one specific algorithm was decided to be patentable. You have no idea what you're ranting on about, do you?
I think what you're trying to say is that one opinion is that the only ideas that should be patented are those that are embodied in a physical mechanism. For example, Canada uses this criterion. It would have been far better to link to a source in the first place -- I find Wikipedia's explanations of patent issues to be far less silly than the discussions here. Thanks for finally finding one!
Didn't they hear? Stanford broke the PeV barrier in October 2009!
You don't patent a physical mechanism. You patent the idea for a mechanism. No one else can build a separate physical mechanism that matches your idea and then claim it isn't covered by your idea because it's a different physical mechanism. All patents are patents on ideas.
Someone else has tried to argue that patents apply to implementations, but that also doesn't make sense. If a drug company could patent only a specific formulation of a drug, then another company could make its own formulation and claim it isn't covered by the patent.
All inventions are ideas, and inventions are what is patented. All patents are patents on ideas. You can read about how to patent an idea at howtopatentanidea.net.
Then how can a video codec be patented? If you could only patent one particular implementation, then I could implement the codec myself and no one else would have any patent rights to my implementation. Has Groklaw been so wrong all these years?
Product: (n) merchandise, ware, product (commodities offered for sale) "good business depends on having good merchandise"; "that store offers a variety of products"
You got me. Sue the USPTO and present Alan Turing as your star witness in the trial. Double dumbass on you!
If everybody but me understands why patents are wrong, why do we have patents?
A patent attorney says that Computer Software is Not Math. Fuck you, too.
You copyright programs. You patent algorithms.
If there are no patents, what's the incentive for innovation?
-- Thomas Jefferson
That describes... guess what?
Patents!
No, physical things cannot be patented. Drug companies don't patent physical pills. They patent a chemical formula that could be made into a pill, a table, a shot, a spray. Your whole idea of a physical/non-physical dichotomy makes no sense.
Let's say I make two widgets, Widget A and Widget B. Widget A has the first paragraph of Harry Potter and the Philospopher's Stone etched into it. Widget B contains a gear mechanism that is covered by a patent. Both are physical manifestations of an idea. I cannot sell either, but for two entirely different reasons.
You can't patent that idea. You can only patent an idea that can be used in making a product. FAIL on two counts -- not understanding what kinds of ideas can be patented, and not providing a source as I requested. Could you provide a source that discusses this silly idea in more detail?
Books are physical and they are copyrighted, not patented. Your idea that physical things are patented and non-physical things are copyrighted doesn't make any sense.
Inventions (ideas) that can be implemented in many different products are patented. A specific authored work can be copyrighted. Copyrights cover specific manifestations of ideas that have taken a concrete form, such as specific words, musical notes, or lines of computer code. Patents cover general ideas that could implemented in various specific ways.
Because an algorithm is an idea that can be implemented in many different ways, it can be patented. Each specific implementation, for example, programs that implement the algorithm, can be copyrighted.
Copyright restricts your right to copy the information that is copyrighted. A patent does not restrict your right to copy information (i.e. the idea embodied in the patent itself), but restricts your right to produce products that use the patent.
I know there are some radicals that say that we shouldn't have any patents whatsoever, but that would put the brakes on innovation. There would be no drugs developed by for-profit companies, for example. Without any patents on their products, competitors could sell generic versions immediately and they wouldn't be able to recoup R and D costs. Surely there is a happy medium between our currently broken patent system where patents are awarded for obvious ideas, and eradicating all patents. Abolishing patents would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Software is different from algorithms. Software can be copyrighted. Algorithms can be patented.
Every patent involves an expression of an idea. A drug is a chemical compound (i.e. an idea about how to arrange atoms), and those can be patented. A machine is an expression of an idea (i.e. an idea of how to arrange gears and pulleys and levers), and those can be patented. I would say that an algorithm is in every sense an invention just as much as a drug or a machine.
Those things are different from mathematical proofs or scientific hypotheses, which are not inventions, in the sense that you cannot do anything with them alone. You must apply them to a situation. They are no good on their own. You cannot put a mathematical proof or scientific hypothesis into a product. You can put a drug or a machine or an algorithm into a product.
I don't buy this "ideas can't be patented" argument. Can you give some sources where is seemingly silly idea is discussed at greater length?
Microsoft is being treated specially because they have a near monopoly on the desktop operating system market, and they have been abusing this monopoly to promote their own products, such as their web browser, their search engine, and their Office suite. Other companies do not have a monopoly in these areas, and therefore they face an uphill battle in attempting to compete against Microsoft. By promoting other browsers, they're trying to level the playing field to allow more competition, which should result in better products.
I can understand why people would be against software patents for obvious ideas, such as the one-click patent. But are these folks against all software patents, no matter how innovative and complex? If so, why? What makes software patents so special that they should not be allowed?
Well, duh! Because it's easier to remember. And it's better than having a post-it for each car -- just one post-it with the one password will do!
You were lucky to have hydrogen. In my day all we had was a plasma of free protons and electrons and background radiation, and we LIKED it!
As the Arctic warms, the methane will be released into the atmosphere. It has been happening for years and will continue for the foreseeable future.