Yeah thanks for the welcome. The end of the sexual revolution sucks but at least disco is over... eh, wait, I just saw what's on MTV. Crap, send me back.
Because this guy had some creativity to let loose and he put it together. Some people liked it, some people didn't.
I'm a killer Zeppelin fan, hell I spent countless hours learning to play probably close to 20 Zeppelin songs on the guitar. I even bought a guitar by comparing its sound to Jimmy Page. But to call Zeppelin music like it's some pinnacle of art? WTF man.
Those British woman-boys wore illegally tight pants (with no underwear, or "knickers" as the British woman-boys might say) completely highlighting their junk, at center stage with a spotlight, singing crap like "Oh oh oh oh, oh oh, you don't have to go oh, oh oh, oh oh, baby you don't have to go." Jimmy Page had bell bottoms with dragons "flying" up the leg. Ooh ooh, let me get out my inkwell and feather quill, I simply MUST write a letter to my professor from Underrated Composers of the Middle Romance Era to inform him of these truly artistic lads.
But that said, Zeppelin is the goddamn end all of dark rock and the beginning of quality metal.
And mc chris is pretty entertaining, but bear in mind that this is coming from a guy with a big enough brain to love and rehearse songs by both Pantera and Arlo Guthrie, Franz Ferdinand and Robert Johnson, The Jurrasic Five and Villa Lobos. I hate (love) to sound like the comic store guy from the Simpsons, but you have got the WORST condescending opinion about music EVAR.
So if you're like me, you call it music when somebody puts together a creative expression and saves it for posterity. That flies in the face of "recording crap to make a buck", and when you die and go to heaven and meet All The People From History Who Know Shit About Music, they're going to tell you that both Iron Maiden and Led Zeppelin recorded crap to make a buck.
The loser who writes some rhymes and records it on his mac laptop is making music - maybe even more legitimately than The Totally Rad Band from 30 years ago whose entire discography is in your awesome 50 CD changer.
No offense intended - just cramming my opinion into the discussion.
1 Kb doesn't seem like a lot of music. 1 Mb/min is the usal rate for at least decent encodings. That means that 1Kb would play... 1/1024 min or approx.05 seconds. Ouch
Judging from your high UID and your apparent inexperience with the computers of 1982, I feel fully justified in blazenly assuming that 1 Kb of YOUR music is MORE than enough. 0.058 seconds of "Dad won't buy me a car, homework sucks" is exactly the right amount.
(Take it easy - I'm from 1980 myself and employing ironic humor - being an ass to mock the young kids (and I'm justified in mocking the Commodore-64 because I grew up on a Vic-20, thanks for asking.))
The US patent system was specifically designed so that the inventor would have the broadest protection he can grab. If you invented the concept of flying cars and disclosed how to build and use a flying car, then it is your Constitutional right to define your invention as "a car that can fly" if the prior art fails to teach it.
Additionally, I think you would enjoy reading about "constructive reduction to practice" compared to "actual reduction to practice". The former is quickly defined as documentation that complies with 35 USC 112 (ie contains enough information that a person in that technology could make and use the invention) while the latter is a demonstration of a working example, such as a prototype, model, or in many cases, source code. A rather broad consensus holds that requiring actual reduction to practice for a patent application obscenely favors corporations with mountains of disposable capital at the expense of the little guy, so it's a pretty good requirement if you're trying to support the huge corporations and shaft the independent innovators.
The flip side of that is that a patent application can't be so vague or filled with middle-management jargon that you can't figure out what it is. Unfortunately for software-related inventions, this isn't a hard requirement to fill. The stereotypical condescending intellectualism that surrounds computer science bites itself in the ass here - part of proving that an application is not sufficient reduction to practice would involve getting an expert in software engineering to swear in an affidavit that he cannot make the invention as it is described. If his ego-inflated head doesn't explode, you might be getting somewhere, but the chances of this happening and working in court are really slim.
Unfortunately for that argument, I can pretty well figure out what a "plog" is and how it works just by reading the jokes made here on Slashdot. I don't need to see source code nor do I need to read a specification to build and use a plog of my own. This is in line with your observation - they aren't describing a specific implementation of anything; they're talking about a really broad, very basic idea. But God love'em, if they came up with it, then they can claim patent protection for the whole idea. Unfortunately for them, describing and patenting a broad concept isn't very easy to litigate. It often prevents infringement of -exactly- what is claimed, but basically -anything- could be construed as an improvement.
Before Christmas Amazon had the "gold box" recommendation thing (I think it was in beta). It would have 10 special offers just for me like once a week. It was so hilarious that I would wait till my friends were around to see what they suggested.
I usually had 2 different pairs of gold earrings, at least 4 kitchen appliances (the most obscure you could think of - stuff like spice grinders and $250 coffee makers), and a power tool (usually a router or circular saw). They were all SO random that we were making drinking bets and stuff on what would come up next.
I see that Amazon seems to have discontinued that service... wonder why.
Uh yeah, or maybe some random guy on the internet who has never actually laid eyes on the thing isn't the leading expert in how it works. I'm just, you know, tossing that out there. No offense, I'm just saying..
It's fabric drenched in cement. I don't know how much cement you've laid, but I've laid quite a lot. Reinforced concrete is a modern marvel - literally. I believe The Discovery Channel has an episode of Modern Marvels specifically about concrete.
By the way, which weighs more, 500 lbs. of feathers or 500 lbs. of lead? Guess how much a 98 lb. bag of concrete weighs. Guess how much that 98 lbs. of concrete weighs after you use it to impregnate a piece of fabric? I'll answer the next one myself: What do you call a piece of fabric impregnated with 98 lbs. of concrete? Reinforced concrete.
So my take on this is that they're making a very thin shell of concrete, much like you're traditional paper mache, except far more durable. It probably wouldn't survive the erosion of a few heavy rains, but if you crashed a car into it, it would crumple but not be demolished.
I KNOW that somewhere I've seen someone else constructing buildings with this inflation method but I can't recall where. Maybe it was grain storage sheds or something. Anyway, reinforced concrete is truly remarkable - if this stuff made a shell 1/4" thick, you could bust it up with a hammer or a baseball bat but it would take you all day to actually tear the thing down. The cool thing about reinforced concrete is that it doesn't really matter if you crack it. You end up with two pieces of concrete that are bonded by the reinforcement so tightly that the crack is inconsequential. Adjust that concept for 1000 cracks or thin sheets of concrete, but the principle still holds.
I heard one of the advanced features, available if you buy the upgraded deluxe version, is the ability to switch to a desktop background that ISN'T the default. So yeah, it's ugly, but if you fork over the premium dollars, then you can afford cutting edge, never-before-seen technology like switching the desktop background. (I heard there is some 1337 hacker trick to do this in Windows, but let's not kid ourselves - it's impossible with such a rudimentary OS!)
I agree entirely with your sentiment about Slashdot, however. I used to think it was a great forum where you could find expert opinions on all sorts of technology and science, but now that I'm a few years further down the path to being an expert myself, I recognize that there's practically nothing of value here. I continue to read it primarily out of habit.
Fear not. Perfectly aligned in the EM wave sense does not equal correct alignment in the mass/bullet sense. One must adjust for windage, for one thing. For another, even if you could get the range via bluetooth, the parabollic trajectory of the bullet (some calibres are 'flatter' than others, and even different manufacturers) must be taken into account based on that range.
Yeah, no kidding! Gosh, if someone aimed EXACTLY at my blue-tooth cell phone, held up to my ear, by the time the bullet traveled 300 yards it would be AT LEAST 12 inches lower and 2 or 3 inches to either side! HA! The joke is on them!
That is indeed a very good example on submarine patents - by Microsoft.
No, it is not.
Patents are published and publicly available. If the digital camera makers went ahead and introduced a product to market without approaching Microsoft about using Microsoft's patented technology, that is a simple issue of infringement.
A submarine patent is when you keep a patent application secret or when you decline to enforce an issued patent despite being aware that someone is infringing it. If the digital camera makers contacted Microsoft about their issued patent, and Microsoft informally said, "Nah, go ahead, we don't care," but later brought suit for infringement, that would be a submarine patent. Please observe that the camera makers would be extremely stupid in that situation for not working out a "for free" licensing deal to justify their use of the technology.
In any event, what you have described is by no means a "submarine patent".
are educated as to how to go about searching for prior art (particularly, but not limited to, in the tech space)?
They are required to have at least a BS in their field, and in most cases that's hardly enough to be hired.
Also, whatever happened to patents only being licensed when the product is clearly demonstrated (that is, instead of patenting an *idea* for a product)?
The USPTO doesn't license patents. I'm skeptical that you're informed of this issue. I recommend reading MPEP 2106 if you're interested in what can be patented in computer related applications. (Google for "MPEP 2106" and you'll be right there.)
The notion of "clearly demonstrated" and "an idea" for a product is covered by 35 USC 112 and the concept of "reduction to practice". A patent application which complies with 35 USC 112 demonstrates "reduction to practice", meaning that it provides enough disclosure for a person of ordinary skill in the art to build it with a reasonable level of experimentation. There is no clear definition of "reasonable level of experimentation", however in the computer related arts, certain court cases have established that 2 years and something like $1,000,000 is not unreasonable. "Actual reduction to practice" is the concept that covers models, demonstrations, and prototypes, and if the USPTO adopted such a practice, it would obviously benefit big corporations - those with the money to spend on prototypes.
Submarine patents are a huge threat to the legitimate employment that these companies provide, to the real effort expended by their employees in developing solutions to the problems computers have (and "embracing and extending" these problems...) and to the money that funds this development.
The issue of submarine patents is out of date. The AIPA has established that all US applications filed after Nov 29, 2000 will be published within 18 months (as suggested by the article). The US does allow for a couple of exemptions, such as military technology and I believe some encryption or espionage technology (but don't quote me on that). Also, you can file a request for nonpublication, but this is extremely rare, and applications with such a request are often scrutinized.
I'd really like to hear more about what these guys mean when they say "submarine patents". Almost every patent application filed before Nov 29 2000 has been dealt with, therefore basically every existing application has been or will be published. While it is possible to request nonpublication, I'm only mentioning it because it is technically possible. It is an incredibly rare option. I'd guess that at most 1 in 100 applications has a request for nonpublication, and many of those are from individual inventors who get talked into paying for it by their lawyers.
It does depend on what is meant by "better examination". I don't know how many examiners you know, but every single one I've ever met has at least one story where s/he knew an application should have been rejected but was overturned on appeal. Some of these stories are absurd - stuff like "claim for operatively connected", prior art shows "bus", and the board was apparently confused as to why the examiner felt that mass transit constituted "operatively connected". In that case, the examiner knew exactly what s/he was talking about, but was told to issue the patent anyway.
Another issue is that applications are supposed to be examined in specific areas, with specific teams of experts, but all too often they get misclassified and rather than transfered to the correct area, it appears that some examiners are cavalier about it and examine it anyway. (I also understand that there is resistance to transfer by some - it requires a willing sender and a willing receiver, and one or both might be reluctant to participate.) It's an eye opening experience to file 10 related applications and have 1 of them misclassified. From outside the office, you can't do much about it, and that 1 misclassified application will have a drastically different prosecution.
As with any large organization, personal egos of the people in power and personalities come into play as well. If anything, I'd say that the treatment an application receives is too inconsistent. A more consistent process would be "better examining" and I don't believe it would significantly influence the flow of revenue.
Ohh and this is just another reason why software patents are completely useless...
I'm not trying to say that maybe (Slashdot in general | you in particular) don't really have a clue, but compare your informational content to mine.
MPEP 2106(II)(A) states that, among other things, a software process must produce a "useful, concrete, and tangible result". The definition of "useful" is given a lot of ink, but later in that chapter it is made clear that a "concrete and tangible result" meets the "useful" requirement. Looking at the independent claims of this patent (6665797), I don't see anything that could be reasonably interpreted as a "concrete and tangible" result. While the idea of the claimed methods are useful, the "access" that is provided is by no means concrete or tangible. Therefore, were I defending against an infringement suit, I would attack these claims as directed to nonstatutory subject matter, not in compliance with 35 USC 101, and hopefully have the suit dropped.
The next thing I see is language like "in such a manner" in the claims. Oh really? Exactly what manner is that? Claim 14 says
wherein said identity information existing in such a manner that said identity information being capable of being used in enabling electronic commerce operation(s) for which rightful user(s) of said software desired to be protected has to be responsible;
Uh, wtf? If my attack on these claims under 35 USC 101 wasn't enough, I would use 35 USC 112. What the hell kind of limitation is that? Exactly WHAT "identity information" is covered by this? That one example is so vague that I couldn't begin to tell you what it covers. A user name? A credit card number? A DNA sequence? Give me a break.
The third attack I would make has to do with the disclosure, and falls under 35 USC 112 as well. Just take a quick glance at the supposedly enabling disclosure. It's marginally better than Engrish. I certainly don't see every claimed feature depicted in the drawings. Exactly where in the drawings is "said operation being operation related to making payment from an account of said rightful user(s) and said first information being a password"?
I don't see what the fuss is about. Here's the real story.
"Inventors" hire lawyer to get patent.
Lawyer writes up a crap ass patent application.
Lawyer annoys an examiner, examiner looks at application, examiner smirks. (Issued now with flaws is far, far worse for the "inventor" than issued later after the application has been strengthened (and the opposite is true for humankind, which should make the limp-wristed hippy socialists happy.))
Examiner allows patent - lawyer gets paid - "inventor" gets patent.
Next comes the infringment and some publicity for the litigants. I wish them luck with that USPTO-issued wallpaper. Better hope Apple can't afford decent lawyers... oh wait.
I'd put odds on Apple not paying a cent for infringing this patent. I'd also put odds on never hearing about this patent after Apple's lawyers are done with it.
Seriously, all the alarmist talk around here about "OMGWTFLOLBBQ!!!11one just more evidence that software patents are eilv!" is nothing more than silly if you have half a clue. There are definitely problems with the system, but THIS is not indicative of THAT problem.
Disclaimer: I hold a BSCS, BS Mathematics, and work entirely in IP.
This is an obvious (ok, advanced,optimized ) method to scan for virusses.
It may be "obvious" as defined by the dictionary, but that does not make it "obvious" as defined by 35 USC 103 (the statute which created the concept of nonobvious improvements) and related case law. In a crash course on 103 obviousness, you must find two (or more) references that "teach into" each other. For example, reference A teaches virus detection based on scanning the memory. Reference B teaches virus detection based on emulation (a sandbox), AND teaches that various forms of detecting the virus are usable. (If, for some reason, B teaches that scanning the memory is undesirable, B becomes unusable for our purposes.) Now, if you can build a plausible argument that reference A can be combined with reference B, an average person in the technology would have recognized this, and there is documented motivation for combining them (that various forms are usuable, AND scanning memory has some advantage), then and (essentially) only then have you proven this is obvious.
And keep in mind that both of your references must have at least "constructive reduction to practice" (enough written disclosure to comply with 35 USC 112 (a standard supposedly met by all patent disclosures)) and it must have be dated so authenticly that you're happy to risk your career by swearing to it in a courtroom.
This kind of patent decription is not enough to recreate the system.
The disclosure, not the claims, are required to be enabling.
The function [process]patents were designed to protect is the novel and non-obvious physical processes upon physical materials.
I'm afraid that simply isn't true. I'm not even sure what a "physical process" is. MPEP 2106 has a pretty lengthy and in-depth discussion of what is or is not a statutory process.
The point being that software is either patentable or it isn't.
Right, and software is not patentable.
Are you going to attempt to draw some imaginary line at software that takes more than 5 minutes to run mentally?
No, but software that performs a calculation that is "not reasonably possible" for a human to perform, and produces a tangible output (therefore requiring some hardware, which is something external to the software) is often statutory. For example, Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of a model with 10,000 nodes is not reasonably possible for a human to perform. A computer is the tool which enables the results to be produced. For analogy, it isn't impossible that a single human could seperate an entire plantation's wheat from the chaff, but a wheat thresher is an incredible invention that facilitates makes it possible. So too is a computer that computes the FEA and delivers the results.
So is zip compression unpatentable for short files, but patentable for long files because it is "impossible" to do mentally?
If you claimed your zip compression as an algorithm, that is nonstatutory for a number of reasons (including that a human could perform the steps.) If you similarly claimed zip compression but only on files larger than 1 million bytes, it would be nonstatutory for a number of reasons (but probably not because it could be performed by a human.) If you claimed zip compression where the input is read from a computer readable medium and the result is transmitted to some form of computer readable storage, you probably have a statutory claim.
Either logic steps are fundamentally patentable or they aren't.
Logic steps are not patentable. That is not what is at issue.
The problem is that software, by virtue of being executed on a computer, interacts with the tangible world on some level. This makes it exceedingly difficult, in the realm of legal language, to distinguish between a computer controlled blast furnace and a web browser. Precious little case law exists to justify calling a claimed invention "software" just because we all know it is software (In re Sarkar).
Where the "novelty" and "nonobviousness" lies in software, that computer can be replaced by a human staring at the inputs and doing the calculations and then manually entering the results through a suitable I/O interface.
Novelty and nonobviousness are only two of four fundamental requirements for a patent. Again, while you and I both know that on an academic level, a computer doesn't do anything that a human cannot perform, but that argument is absurd outside of the classroom. For example, post your next reply without using a computer. In analogous technology, an airplane doesn't do anything a human can't do - if you hold your body in the right shape run really fast, you'll fly. Once airborne, simply kick your legs as though you were swimming, except much faster. You'll be flying in no time. Similarly, render a simple 30 second scene from your favorite 3D FPS game by hand, following the same algorithm. Although either are technically possible, both are absurd and meaningless outside of the classroom, and especially in a court room.
There is nothing inventive or patentable in the obvious step of using a computer simply to speed up the calculations.
Without the computer, the airplane is nonfunctional. Also, you are using the definition of "obvious" found in the dictionary, which has almost nothing to do with "obvious" regarding patents. You clearly have some background with the patent system, but I don't know how much, so here's a quick explanation. "Obvious" with regard t
But, didn't they plan on carrying about 15% EXTRA fuel than was strictly needed, just in case?
If that were the plan, then I imagine it would be easier and safer to announce a fake "loss of fuel" and dumping the excess at the last mile, so to speak.
How can we really trust this report? Where is the third party confirmation of this joker's fuel levels? Lies, nothing but lies. Page me when he crashes into Cambodia.
[Diamond v. Diehr] hardly opens the door for logic patents.
Quite right, and MPEP 2106 reinforces that. A patent application should be rejected as nonstatutory if it fails to produce a useful, concrete and tangible result (MPEP 2106 II A). The catch is that you must figure out what that means.
Software that fiddles with bits in memory does not meet this criteria. Software that "transmits computation results via a communications relay for permanent expression" could print results on a printer, save results on your hard drive, or control a grinding machine to produce a three-dimensional prototype. To date, there exists no judicially created guideline that draws a line in the sand, separating what Slashdot calls "software" and what lawyers call "software". In fact, I highly doubt that Slashdot could come to a consensus.
A certain 100 digit number may certainly never have existed before (novel). That 100 digit number may certainly be non-obvious. That 100 digit number may certainly be useful. However a number is not an invention. A number is not patentable. Math is not an invention and is not patentable. An equation is not an invention and is not patentable. An algorithm is not an invention and is not patentable. Logic is not an invention and is not patentable. A series of mental steps is not an invention and is not patentable. These things are synonymous with software.
While I know that is academically true (I'm a BSCS and BSMathematics who concentrated in computability and algorithms) it would be trivial to show this is absurd in court.
"Ok, 432,215,732,253,144. What does that software do?"
"Uh.."
Nobody is claiming a particular number for a patent. Hell, a particular organization of steel molecules is synonymous with every all-steel machine, but nobody would use that argument to overthrow patents on Vise-Grips(TM), would they?
I am a programmer. Running software mentally is a routine part of writing and debugging software. Any software can in principal eventually be "run" in pure though in a human brain (though obviously some software would take millions of years to run that way).
The fact that it would take millions of years is precisely why it would be considered impossible for a human. The F-117A Nighthawk is too unstable to fly without computer control, although Superman could do it;) There is a line on what is reasonable for a human to perform, and most software is beyond that line. Any software that electronically communicates via computer components is automatically beyond that line.
(1) Is it possible for the law to restrict thought itself? If a person sits motionless and does in fact carry out some patented software mentally, has he infringed the patent? Has he violated the law by thinking a legally prohibited sequence of thoughts??? Hopefully you find this not merely absurd, but find it to be a horrifying legal concept. Thought crime.
Is there anything novel, anything non-obvious, anything inventive, about taking the blatantly obvious step of using a computer simply to speed up those calculations and mental steps?
Of course, sending email is NOT "automating previously mental steps", nor is the system to do so "merely a number". Sending email is not possible without using computer system, therefore it couldn't be a manual process. The fact that the system's software could be represented as a number is irrelevant - it could also be considered a work of literary art, or printed as a tile mosaic and appreciated in a museum. It would be patentable because of what it DOES, unlike a number, poem, or pretty picture.
Of course, I'm not arguing that software patents are valid. A quick glance at MPEP 2106 reveals that software per se is indeed nonstatutory. I am trying to be as informative as possible and expose how complex this issue really is.
I think it has become fairly clear that it determines neither trait well.
I doubt you could define either of these terms as they apply to the Patent system. What was established by State Street? Deere? Diamond v. Diehr? Chakrabarty? Those are only the landmark cases in patent law of the last 75 years, contributing to the definition of what is patentable, what is novel, and what is nonobvious. If any of those monumental cases are not instantly recognizable, please realize that you're not equipped to discuss what is novel or nonobvious.
The problem of the duration 'temporary' is -not- a separate discussion. It is directly relevant. Many people who oppose patents do so because they assert that patents are stifling innovation.
I'd love to hear how the concept of novel and nonobvious are related to the issue of the duration of patents. I'm sure it would be entertaining. Actually, most people who oppose patents don't have a clue what they're talking about. In fact, many people think that the USPTO decides what is and is not patentable. A third grade social studies book would clear up that issue. The judicial branch of government interprets laws, not the USPTO.
If the cycle of innovation is shorter than the duration of a patent, then you are discouraging innovation rather than encouraging.
I am inclined to agree with that sentiment, however it is extremely broad and sure to be met with endless exceptions and caveats.
You assert that patenting a trivial thing is money wasted. This is unfortunately not the case-- Death by paper-cuts (i.e. lawyers) is a fairly common tactic these days. Even if you win the court case you can lose the war.
Of course this happens, but the USPTO isn't responsible for the litigious nature of corporate America, isn't responsible for performing a $100,000 patent search for $1000 (in 10 hours), and isn't responsible for matching your socks.
The USPTO tries to weed out the absurd legal snafus and performs a $1000 prior art search. Contact your local IP professionals and see what type of prior art search they'll do for $1000. Here's my prediction: it'll be far from perfect, and they won't even pretend that it would be perfect.
Software is more than adequately protected by copyright. The only good solution for software patents is no software patents. I can sort of see the point of patents on hardware, but again, they need to be quality patents or the problem is worse than the solution.
Food for thought - Tannenbaum has a marvelous quote that software is equivalent to hardware.
As you seem to be aware, software itself is not patentable (in the US). Systems that include software are patentable, ranging from computer control of fuel mixtures in a space shuttle, computer control of a blast furnace, distributed computing arrangments, to unfortunately computer code embodied on computer memory which executes on a computer processor.
The spirit is in the right place, but to date there isn't any concise and nearly perfect way to indoctrinate the idea that "computer controlled flight systems" should be patentable and "GUIs on a computer" should not. For comparison, look up 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 for an example of laws that govern the patent system. Spruce up that language, if you can, to "cure" the problem of "software patents" while protecting the IP investments and innovation of people making truly complicated systems that use computer/software elements.
Not that this should be taken as a personal challenge, but this is the problem facing the courts (in the US). If you're too draconian or arbitrary in your distinction, it'll immediately end up at the Supreme Court with allegations of unconstitutional market controls and discrimination against sectors of the economy. If you're too loose with the definitions, we'll be living with patents for blinking cursors (which, of course, interact with the highly complicated computer visual display system;)
Not nearly as simple a problem as many Slashdotters would like to believe, but not many Slashdotters bother to inform themselves of the issues.
I have mod points but I give up. There's just too much misunderstanding of the patent system to have any influence.
The biggest problem i see with software patents is that companies patent the most trivial things.
The USPTO does what it can with limited resources to issue valid patents. They don't issue strong patents. A patent for something done, or something that has verifiable prior art will be laughed at in a courtroom. This doesn't mean the USPTO did anything wrong - the USPTO was never tasked with issuing strong patents.
The big few hard drive manufacturers have patented just about every conceivable way of making and running hard disks. They have cross-licensing agreements which make it very hard for any new players to break into the market.
They're still subject to whatever anti-trust and collusion regulations might apply (and I'm not expert on that section of law.) In any event, a patent is a temporary monopoly - if you (or a group of companies) has managed to patent every aspect of how something works, it's only reasonable to expect that new players would have a hard time breaking into the market. Taken out of context, that's proof that they have effective patents and that the system works as it was conceived.
A new player with a new idea is perfectly free to break into the market. They might design a new hard drive from the ground up, or they might design a new component, seek patent protection, and muscle themselves into their own cross licensing deal. While this is somewhat of a stretch, the existing patent protection held by the existing companies is, after all, only temporary. (I would agree that in certain sectors of technology, it's long enough to be effectively permanent, but that's a separate issue.)
Anyway, back to the main point - the money spent for a software company to patent a trivial thing is very likely money wasted. I have posted at least 25 times that the first stage of an infringement defense is a validity attack on the patent, including an extensive prior art search and independent research into the technology. Patent something trivial and the judge will be entertained to hear a viciously armed validity attack on the patent. If it's truly a trivial invention, the ramifications of that fact will echo through the rest of the proceedings, ranging from invalidation of the patent to determining the damages.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah thanks for the welcome. The end of the sexual revolution sucks but at least disco is over... eh, wait, I just saw what's on MTV. Crap, send me back.
I'm a killer Zeppelin fan, hell I spent countless hours learning to play probably close to 20 Zeppelin songs on the guitar. I even bought a guitar by comparing its sound to Jimmy Page. But to call Zeppelin music like it's some pinnacle of art? WTF man.
Those British woman-boys wore illegally tight pants (with no underwear, or "knickers" as the British woman-boys might say) completely highlighting their junk, at center stage with a spotlight, singing crap like "Oh oh oh oh, oh oh, you don't have to go oh, oh oh, oh oh, baby you don't have to go." Jimmy Page had bell bottoms with dragons "flying" up the leg. Ooh ooh, let me get out my inkwell and feather quill, I simply MUST write a letter to my professor from Underrated Composers of the Middle Romance Era to inform him of these truly artistic lads.
But that said, Zeppelin is the goddamn end all of dark rock and the beginning of quality metal.
And mc chris is pretty entertaining, but bear in mind that this is coming from a guy with a big enough brain to love and rehearse songs by both Pantera and Arlo Guthrie, Franz Ferdinand and Robert Johnson, The Jurrasic Five and Villa Lobos. I hate (love) to sound like the comic store guy from the Simpsons, but you have got the WORST condescending opinion about music EVAR.
So if you're like me, you call it music when somebody puts together a creative expression and saves it for posterity. That flies in the face of "recording crap to make a buck", and when you die and go to heaven and meet All The People From History Who Know Shit About Music, they're going to tell you that both Iron Maiden and Led Zeppelin recorded crap to make a buck.
The loser who writes some rhymes and records it on his mac laptop is making music - maybe even more legitimately than The Totally Rad Band from 30 years ago whose entire discography is in your awesome 50 CD changer.
No offense intended - just cramming my opinion into the discussion.
Greetings!
This is what a Commodore-64 is!
Commodore 64
Judging from your high UID and your apparent inexperience with the computers of 1982, I feel fully justified in blazenly assuming that 1 Kb of YOUR music is MORE than enough. 0.058 seconds of "Dad won't buy me a car, homework sucks" is exactly the right amount.
(Take it easy - I'm from 1980 myself and employing ironic humor - being an ass to mock the young kids (and I'm justified in mocking the Commodore-64 because I grew up on a Vic-20, thanks for asking.))
Additionally, I think you would enjoy reading about "constructive reduction to practice" compared to "actual reduction to practice". The former is quickly defined as documentation that complies with 35 USC 112 (ie contains enough information that a person in that technology could make and use the invention) while the latter is a demonstration of a working example, such as a prototype, model, or in many cases, source code. A rather broad consensus holds that requiring actual reduction to practice for a patent application obscenely favors corporations with mountains of disposable capital at the expense of the little guy, so it's a pretty good requirement if you're trying to support the huge corporations and shaft the independent innovators.
The flip side of that is that a patent application can't be so vague or filled with middle-management jargon that you can't figure out what it is. Unfortunately for software-related inventions, this isn't a hard requirement to fill. The stereotypical condescending intellectualism that surrounds computer science bites itself in the ass here - part of proving that an application is not sufficient reduction to practice would involve getting an expert in software engineering to swear in an affidavit that he cannot make the invention as it is described. If his ego-inflated head doesn't explode, you might be getting somewhere, but the chances of this happening and working in court are really slim.
Unfortunately for that argument, I can pretty well figure out what a "plog" is and how it works just by reading the jokes made here on Slashdot. I don't need to see source code nor do I need to read a specification to build and use a plog of my own. This is in line with your observation - they aren't describing a specific implementation of anything; they're talking about a really broad, very basic idea. But God love'em, if they came up with it, then they can claim patent protection for the whole idea. Unfortunately for them, describing and patenting a broad concept isn't very easy to litigate. It often prevents infringement of -exactly- what is claimed, but basically -anything- could be construed as an improvement.
Here's some recommended reading:
MPEP 2138.05
MPEP 2164.08
I usually had 2 different pairs of gold earrings, at least 4 kitchen appliances (the most obscure you could think of - stuff like spice grinders and $250 coffee makers), and a power tool (usually a router or circular saw). They were all SO random that we were making drinking bets and stuff on what would come up next.
I see that Amazon seems to have discontinued that service... wonder why.
Uh yeah, or maybe some random guy on the internet who has never actually laid eyes on the thing isn't the leading expert in how it works. I'm just, you know, tossing that out there. No offense, I'm just saying..
It's fabric drenched in cement. I don't know how much cement you've laid, but I've laid quite a lot. Reinforced concrete is a modern marvel - literally. I believe The Discovery Channel has an episode of Modern Marvels specifically about concrete.
By the way, which weighs more, 500 lbs. of feathers or 500 lbs. of lead? Guess how much a 98 lb. bag of concrete weighs. Guess how much that 98 lbs. of concrete weighs after you use it to impregnate a piece of fabric? I'll answer the next one myself: What do you call a piece of fabric impregnated with 98 lbs. of concrete? Reinforced concrete.
So my take on this is that they're making a very thin shell of concrete, much like you're traditional paper mache, except far more durable. It probably wouldn't survive the erosion of a few heavy rains, but if you crashed a car into it, it would crumple but not be demolished.
I KNOW that somewhere I've seen someone else constructing buildings with this inflation method but I can't recall where. Maybe it was grain storage sheds or something. Anyway, reinforced concrete is truly remarkable - if this stuff made a shell 1/4" thick, you could bust it up with a hammer or a baseball bat but it would take you all day to actually tear the thing down. The cool thing about reinforced concrete is that it doesn't really matter if you crack it. You end up with two pieces of concrete that are bonded by the reinforcement so tightly that the crack is inconsequential. Adjust that concept for 1000 cracks or thin sheets of concrete, but the principle still holds.
I heard one of the advanced features, available if you buy the upgraded deluxe version, is the ability to switch to a desktop background that ISN'T the default. So yeah, it's ugly, but if you fork over the premium dollars, then you can afford cutting edge, never-before-seen technology like switching the desktop background. (I heard there is some 1337 hacker trick to do this in Windows, but let's not kid ourselves - it's impossible with such a rudimentary OS!)
Ref I found
I agree entirely with your sentiment about Slashdot, however. I used to think it was a great forum where you could find expert opinions on all sorts of technology and science, but now that I'm a few years further down the path to being an expert myself, I recognize that there's practically nothing of value here. I continue to read it primarily out of habit.
Yeah, no kidding! Gosh, if someone aimed EXACTLY at my blue-tooth cell phone, held up to my ear, by the time the bullet traveled 300 yards it would be AT LEAST 12 inches lower and 2 or 3 inches to either side! HA! The joke is on them!
Eh..
Huh, looks like knowing what prior art exists isn't always trivial. Just a thought.
Which is why there are no pirated copies of Microsoft Windows. Oh wait..
No, it is not.
Patents are published and publicly available. If the digital camera makers went ahead and introduced a product to market without approaching Microsoft about using Microsoft's patented technology, that is a simple issue of infringement.
A submarine patent is when you keep a patent application secret or when you decline to enforce an issued patent despite being aware that someone is infringing it. If the digital camera makers contacted Microsoft about their issued patent, and Microsoft informally said, "Nah, go ahead, we don't care," but later brought suit for infringement, that would be a submarine patent. Please observe that the camera makers would be extremely stupid in that situation for not working out a "for free" licensing deal to justify their use of the technology.
In any event, what you have described is by no means a "submarine patent".
Examiners.
are educated as to how to go about searching for prior art (particularly, but not limited to, in the tech space)?
They are required to have at least a BS in their field, and in most cases that's hardly enough to be hired.
Also, whatever happened to patents only being licensed when the product is clearly demonstrated (that is, instead of patenting an *idea* for a product)?
The USPTO doesn't license patents. I'm skeptical that you're informed of this issue. I recommend reading MPEP 2106 if you're interested in what can be patented in computer related applications. (Google for "MPEP 2106" and you'll be right there.)
The notion of "clearly demonstrated" and "an idea" for a product is covered by 35 USC 112 and the concept of "reduction to practice". A patent application which complies with 35 USC 112 demonstrates "reduction to practice", meaning that it provides enough disclosure for a person of ordinary skill in the art to build it with a reasonable level of experimentation. There is no clear definition of "reasonable level of experimentation", however in the computer related arts, certain court cases have established that 2 years and something like $1,000,000 is not unreasonable. "Actual reduction to practice" is the concept that covers models, demonstrations, and prototypes, and if the USPTO adopted such a practice, it would obviously benefit big corporations - those with the money to spend on prototypes.
The issue of submarine patents is out of date. The AIPA has established that all US applications filed after Nov 29, 2000 will be published within 18 months (as suggested by the article). The US does allow for a couple of exemptions, such as military technology and I believe some encryption or espionage technology (but don't quote me on that). Also, you can file a request for nonpublication, but this is extremely rare, and applications with such a request are often scrutinized.
I'd really like to hear more about what these guys mean when they say "submarine patents". Almost every patent application filed before Nov 29 2000 has been dealt with, therefore basically every existing application has been or will be published. While it is possible to request nonpublication, I'm only mentioning it because it is technically possible. It is an incredibly rare option. I'd guess that at most 1 in 100 applications has a request for nonpublication, and many of those are from individual inventors who get talked into paying for it by their lawyers.
It does depend on what is meant by "better examination". I don't know how many examiners you know, but every single one I've ever met has at least one story where s/he knew an application should have been rejected but was overturned on appeal. Some of these stories are absurd - stuff like "claim for operatively connected", prior art shows "bus", and the board was apparently confused as to why the examiner felt that mass transit constituted "operatively connected". In that case, the examiner knew exactly what s/he was talking about, but was told to issue the patent anyway.
Another issue is that applications are supposed to be examined in specific areas, with specific teams of experts, but all too often they get misclassified and rather than transfered to the correct area, it appears that some examiners are cavalier about it and examine it anyway. (I also understand that there is resistance to transfer by some - it requires a willing sender and a willing receiver, and one or both might be reluctant to participate.) It's an eye opening experience to file 10 related applications and have 1 of them misclassified. From outside the office, you can't do much about it, and that 1 misclassified application will have a drastically different prosecution.
As with any large organization, personal egos of the people in power and personalities come into play as well. If anything, I'd say that the treatment an application receives is too inconsistent. A more consistent process would be "better examining" and I don't believe it would significantly influence the flow of revenue.
I started on Sega Master System. :( Everybody else had a NES. I still feel less valuable than my peers.
Talk to a competent lawyer.
Sorry for the belated reply.
I'm not trying to say that maybe (Slashdot in general | you in particular) don't really have a clue, but compare your informational content to mine.
MPEP 2106(II)(A) states that, among other things, a software process must produce a "useful, concrete, and tangible result". The definition of "useful" is given a lot of ink, but later in that chapter it is made clear that a "concrete and tangible result" meets the "useful" requirement. Looking at the independent claims of this patent (6665797), I don't see anything that could be reasonably interpreted as a "concrete and tangible" result. While the idea of the claimed methods are useful, the "access" that is provided is by no means concrete or tangible. Therefore, were I defending against an infringement suit, I would attack these claims as directed to nonstatutory subject matter, not in compliance with 35 USC 101, and hopefully have the suit dropped.
The next thing I see is language like "in such a manner" in the claims. Oh really? Exactly what manner is that? Claim 14 says
Uh, wtf? If my attack on these claims under 35 USC 101 wasn't enough, I would use 35 USC 112. What the hell kind of limitation is that? Exactly WHAT "identity information" is covered by this? That one example is so vague that I couldn't begin to tell you what it covers. A user name? A credit card number? A DNA sequence? Give me a break.The third attack I would make has to do with the disclosure, and falls under 35 USC 112 as well. Just take a quick glance at the supposedly enabling disclosure. It's marginally better than Engrish. I certainly don't see every claimed feature depicted in the drawings. Exactly where in the drawings is "said operation being operation related to making payment from an account of said rightful user(s) and said first information being a password"?
I don't see what the fuss is about. Here's the real story.
"Inventors" hire lawyer to get patent.
Lawyer writes up a crap ass patent application.
Lawyer annoys an examiner, examiner looks at application, examiner smirks. (Issued now with flaws is far, far worse for the "inventor" than issued later after the application has been strengthened (and the opposite is true for humankind, which should make the limp-wristed hippy socialists happy.))
Examiner allows patent - lawyer gets paid - "inventor" gets patent.
Next comes the infringment and some publicity for the litigants. I wish them luck with that USPTO-issued wallpaper. Better hope Apple can't afford decent lawyers... oh wait.
I'd put odds on Apple not paying a cent for infringing this patent. I'd also put odds on never hearing about this patent after Apple's lawyers are done with it.
Seriously, all the alarmist talk around here about "OMGWTFLOLBBQ!!!11one just more evidence that software patents are eilv!" is nothing more than silly if you have half a clue. There are definitely problems with the system, but THIS is not indicative of THAT problem.
Disclaimer: I hold a BSCS, BS Mathematics, and work entirely in IP.
It may be "obvious" as defined by the dictionary, but that does not make it "obvious" as defined by 35 USC 103 (the statute which created the concept of nonobvious improvements) and related case law. In a crash course on 103 obviousness, you must find two (or more) references that "teach into" each other. For example, reference A teaches virus detection based on scanning the memory. Reference B teaches virus detection based on emulation (a sandbox), AND teaches that various forms of detecting the virus are usable. (If, for some reason, B teaches that scanning the memory is undesirable, B becomes unusable for our purposes.) Now, if you can build a plausible argument that reference A can be combined with reference B, an average person in the technology would have recognized this, and there is documented motivation for combining them (that various forms are usuable, AND scanning memory has some advantage), then and (essentially) only then have you proven this is obvious.
And keep in mind that both of your references must have at least "constructive reduction to practice" (enough written disclosure to comply with 35 USC 112 (a standard supposedly met by all patent disclosures)) and it must have be dated so authenticly that you're happy to risk your career by swearing to it in a courtroom.
This kind of patent decription is not enough to recreate the system.
The disclosure, not the claims, are required to be enabling.
I'm afraid that simply isn't true. I'm not even sure what a "physical process" is. MPEP 2106 has a pretty lengthy and in-depth discussion of what is or is not a statutory process.
The point being that software is either patentable or it isn't.
Right, and software is not patentable.
Are you going to attempt to draw some imaginary line at software that takes more than 5 minutes to run mentally?
No, but software that performs a calculation that is "not reasonably possible" for a human to perform, and produces a tangible output (therefore requiring some hardware, which is something external to the software) is often statutory. For example, Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of a model with 10,000 nodes is not reasonably possible for a human to perform. A computer is the tool which enables the results to be produced. For analogy, it isn't impossible that a single human could seperate an entire plantation's wheat from the chaff, but a wheat thresher is an incredible invention that facilitates makes it possible. So too is a computer that computes the FEA and delivers the results.
So is zip compression unpatentable for short files, but patentable for long files because it is "impossible" to do mentally?
If you claimed your zip compression as an algorithm, that is nonstatutory for a number of reasons (including that a human could perform the steps.) If you similarly claimed zip compression but only on files larger than 1 million bytes, it would be nonstatutory for a number of reasons (but probably not because it could be performed by a human.) If you claimed zip compression where the input is read from a computer readable medium and the result is transmitted to some form of computer readable storage, you probably have a statutory claim.
Either logic steps are fundamentally patentable or they aren't.
Logic steps are not patentable. That is not what is at issue.
The problem is that software, by virtue of being executed on a computer, interacts with the tangible world on some level. This makes it exceedingly difficult, in the realm of legal language, to distinguish between a computer controlled blast furnace and a web browser. Precious little case law exists to justify calling a claimed invention "software" just because we all know it is software (In re Sarkar).
Where the "novelty" and "nonobviousness" lies in software, that computer can be replaced by a human staring at the inputs and doing the calculations and then manually entering the results through a suitable I/O interface.
Novelty and nonobviousness are only two of four fundamental requirements for a patent. Again, while you and I both know that on an academic level, a computer doesn't do anything that a human cannot perform, but that argument is absurd outside of the classroom. For example, post your next reply without using a computer. In analogous technology, an airplane doesn't do anything a human can't do - if you hold your body in the right shape run really fast, you'll fly. Once airborne, simply kick your legs as though you were swimming, except much faster. You'll be flying in no time. Similarly, render a simple 30 second scene from your favorite 3D FPS game by hand, following the same algorithm. Although either are technically possible, both are absurd and meaningless outside of the classroom, and especially in a court room.
There is nothing inventive or patentable in the obvious step of using a computer simply to speed up the calculations.
Without the computer, the airplane is nonfunctional. Also, you are using the definition of "obvious" found in the dictionary, which has almost nothing to do with "obvious" regarding patents. You clearly have some background with the patent system, but I don't know how much, so here's a quick explanation. "Obvious" with regard t
If that were the plan, then I imagine it would be easier and safer to announce a fake "loss of fuel" and dumping the excess at the last mile, so to speak.
How can we really trust this report? Where is the third party confirmation of this joker's fuel levels? Lies, nothing but lies. Page me when he crashes into Cambodia.
Quite right, and MPEP 2106 reinforces that. A patent application should be rejected as nonstatutory if it fails to produce a useful, concrete and tangible result (MPEP 2106 II A). The catch is that you must figure out what that means.
Software that fiddles with bits in memory does not meet this criteria. Software that "transmits computation results via a communications relay for permanent expression" could print results on a printer, save results on your hard drive, or control a grinding machine to produce a three-dimensional prototype. To date, there exists no judicially created guideline that draws a line in the sand, separating what Slashdot calls "software" and what lawyers call "software". In fact, I highly doubt that Slashdot could come to a consensus.
A certain 100 digit number may certainly never have existed before (novel). That 100 digit number may certainly be non-obvious. That 100 digit number may certainly be useful. However a number is not an invention. A number is not patentable. Math is not an invention and is not patentable. An equation is not an invention and is not patentable. An algorithm is not an invention and is not patentable. Logic is not an invention and is not patentable. A series of mental steps is not an invention and is not patentable. These things are synonymous with software.
While I know that is academically true (I'm a BSCS and BSMathematics who concentrated in computability and algorithms) it would be trivial to show this is absurd in court.
"Ok, 432,215,732,253,144. What does that software do?"
"Uh.."
Nobody is claiming a particular number for a patent. Hell, a particular organization of steel molecules is synonymous with every all-steel machine, but nobody would use that argument to overthrow patents on Vise-Grips(TM), would they?
I am a programmer. Running software mentally is a routine part of writing and debugging software. Any software can in principal eventually be "run" in pure though in a human brain (though obviously some software would take millions of years to run that way).
The fact that it would take millions of years is precisely why it would be considered impossible for a human. The F-117A Nighthawk is too unstable to fly without computer control, although Superman could do it ;) There is a line on what is reasonable for a human to perform, and most software is beyond that line. Any software that electronically communicates via computer components is automatically beyond that line.
(1) Is it possible for the law to restrict thought itself? If a person sits motionless and does in fact carry out some patented software mentally, has he infringed the patent? Has he violated the law by thinking a legally prohibited sequence of thoughts??? Hopefully you find this not merely absurd, but find it to be a horrifying legal concept. Thought crime.
Check out the very last paragraph of MPEP 2105.
2105
Is there anything novel, anything non-obvious, anything inventive, about taking the blatantly obvious step of using a computer simply to speed up those calculations and mental steps?
Check out MPEP 2144.04 III.
2144.04
Of course, sending email is NOT "automating previously mental steps", nor is the system to do so "merely a number". Sending email is not possible without using computer system, therefore it couldn't be a manual process. The fact that the system's software could be represented as a number is irrelevant - it could also be considered a work of literary art, or printed as a tile mosaic and appreciated in a museum. It would be patentable because of what it DOES, unlike a number, poem, or pretty picture.
Of course, I'm not arguing that software patents are valid. A quick glance at MPEP 2106 reveals that software per se is indeed nonstatutory. I am trying to be as informative as possible and expose how complex this issue really is.
And I thoroughly enjoyed your post.
I doubt you could define either of these terms as they apply to the Patent system. What was established by State Street? Deere? Diamond v. Diehr? Chakrabarty? Those are only the landmark cases in patent law of the last 75 years, contributing to the definition of what is patentable, what is novel, and what is nonobvious. If any of those monumental cases are not instantly recognizable, please realize that you're not equipped to discuss what is novel or nonobvious.
The problem of the duration 'temporary' is -not- a separate discussion. It is directly relevant. Many people who oppose patents do so because they assert that patents are stifling innovation.
I'd love to hear how the concept of novel and nonobvious are related to the issue of the duration of patents. I'm sure it would be entertaining. Actually, most people who oppose patents don't have a clue what they're talking about. In fact, many people think that the USPTO decides what is and is not patentable. A third grade social studies book would clear up that issue. The judicial branch of government interprets laws, not the USPTO.
If the cycle of innovation is shorter than the duration of a patent, then you are discouraging innovation rather than encouraging.
I am inclined to agree with that sentiment, however it is extremely broad and sure to be met with endless exceptions and caveats.
You assert that patenting a trivial thing is money wasted. This is unfortunately not the case-- Death by paper-cuts (i.e. lawyers) is a fairly common tactic these days. Even if you win the court case you can lose the war.
Of course this happens, but the USPTO isn't responsible for the litigious nature of corporate America, isn't responsible for performing a $100,000 patent search for $1000 (in 10 hours), and isn't responsible for matching your socks.
The USPTO tries to weed out the absurd legal snafus and performs a $1000 prior art search. Contact your local IP professionals and see what type of prior art search they'll do for $1000. Here's my prediction: it'll be far from perfect, and they won't even pretend that it would be perfect.
Food for thought - Tannenbaum has a marvelous quote that software is equivalent to hardware.
As you seem to be aware, software itself is not patentable (in the US). Systems that include software are patentable, ranging from computer control of fuel mixtures in a space shuttle, computer control of a blast furnace, distributed computing arrangments, to unfortunately computer code embodied on computer memory which executes on a computer processor.
The spirit is in the right place, but to date there isn't any concise and nearly perfect way to indoctrinate the idea that "computer controlled flight systems" should be patentable and "GUIs on a computer" should not. For comparison, look up 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 for an example of laws that govern the patent system. Spruce up that language, if you can, to "cure" the problem of "software patents" while protecting the IP investments and innovation of people making truly complicated systems that use computer/software elements.
Not that this should be taken as a personal challenge, but this is the problem facing the courts (in the US). If you're too draconian or arbitrary in your distinction, it'll immediately end up at the Supreme Court with allegations of unconstitutional market controls and discrimination against sectors of the economy. If you're too loose with the definitions, we'll be living with patents for blinking cursors (which, of course, interact with the highly complicated computer visual display system ;)
Not nearly as simple a problem as many Slashdotters would like to believe, but not many Slashdotters bother to inform themselves of the issues.
The biggest problem i see with software patents is that companies patent the most trivial things.
The USPTO does what it can with limited resources to issue valid patents. They don't issue strong patents. A patent for something done, or something that has verifiable prior art will be laughed at in a courtroom. This doesn't mean the USPTO did anything wrong - the USPTO was never tasked with issuing strong patents.
The big few hard drive manufacturers have patented just about every conceivable way of making and running hard disks. They have cross-licensing agreements which make it very hard for any new players to break into the market.
They're still subject to whatever anti-trust and collusion regulations might apply (and I'm not expert on that section of law.) In any event, a patent is a temporary monopoly - if you (or a group of companies) has managed to patent every aspect of how something works, it's only reasonable to expect that new players would have a hard time breaking into the market. Taken out of context, that's proof that they have effective patents and that the system works as it was conceived.
A new player with a new idea is perfectly free to break into the market. They might design a new hard drive from the ground up, or they might design a new component, seek patent protection, and muscle themselves into their own cross licensing deal. While this is somewhat of a stretch, the existing patent protection held by the existing companies is, after all, only temporary. (I would agree that in certain sectors of technology, it's long enough to be effectively permanent, but that's a separate issue.)
Anyway, back to the main point - the money spent for a software company to patent a trivial thing is very likely money wasted. I have posted at least 25 times that the first stage of an infringement defense is a validity attack on the patent, including an extensive prior art search and independent research into the technology. Patent something trivial and the judge will be entertained to hear a viciously armed validity attack on the patent. If it's truly a trivial invention, the ramifications of that fact will echo through the rest of the proceedings, ranging from invalidation of the patent to determining the damages.