|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT |
2. I'm still not sure we are all talking about the same
things when
we talk about software. I think more precision
between "pure" software (e.g.
calculations) and software as
part of some physical activity would be helpful,
including
how physical the activity must be (printing on a display v.
moving a
robotic arm).
There is no such distinction. All software is "pure"
software. Physical activity might be carried out by some sort of process, or
some physical machine, and that process or machine might also make use of some
software somewhere. That doesn't make the software any less "pure" or any less
"abstract" than any other software.
There is only one kind of software, and
it's purely abstract and mathematical. Lawyers may choose to believe something
else, but then the lawyers are simply wrong.
Patent lawyers sometimes remind
me of Humpty Dumpty.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said
in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither
more nor less.'
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 05:19 PM EDT |
I think that many readers here put much more emphasis on
the "new
machine" concept than patent lawyers, legal
academics, courts, and the PTO do.
For my part, I'm happy to
focus on the process and just never have new
apparatus
patents. The good (and bad) of the system won't change a lot
with that
distinction. Se spent a lot of space here arguing
about whether a new machine is
made (in practice if not in
structure), but that's a sideshow for the things
I'm
thinking about given that patentees can easily sidestep the
issue with magic
words of claiming.
It may be a sideshow for the the things you
think about but it is a necessary preliminary for a discussion we didn't have
which I feel is important.
Let me ask this question: Is a procedure for
manipulating symbols which are limited to specific meanings, a process in the
sense of patent law?
When people think software is a machine made of atoms,
electrons and the likes, this question takes one sense. When it is clear that
symbols are not something made of atoms or electrons and their meanings are
thought in the mind of an observer with no presence in machine structure this
question takes another sense.
In Mayo v. Prometheus the Supreme court says a
patent claim must be more that a law of nature with the instruction to apply it.
Is the sort of procedure I allude to an abstract idea that falls within the
reach of Mayo?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT |
The parts of software which involve influencing physical things are essentially
trivial. The cleverness is in building the peripheral device in the first place
and possibly in writing a driver for it (the boundary between hardware and
software is most blurred when it comes to drivers). Writing software which
merely uses the thing is not clever.
The difficult and novel parts of software are mathematics. The more difficult
and novel they are, the more mathematical they tend to be. These are things like
the fast fourier transform, compression algorithms, encryption algorithms and
the like. Usually these problems are solved as mathematical problems first. Once
the mathematicians and theoreticians have done their job and generated an
efficient algorithm, implementing it in software is just straightforward hard
work.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 06:46 PM EDT |
First off - (Mrische) thank you for your time and patience.
I found your posting quite educational.
Second off - (directed at no one in particular...whistling
absently) Part of communication can sometimes be simply
agreeing to disagree and then discussing other things.
Around the 500th 'software is maths or similar' posting, a
point of diminishing returns exists.
I wonder if, sometime before that point, it might be more
productive to accept that:
(a) it is possible that rational, honest human beings may
disagree with that viewpoint
(b) Mrisch has probably heard that viewpoint already
I've usually found that communication works better absent
snide postings and under the assumption that valid reasons
for disagreement usually exist.*
What I learned:
(a) some people think there's a clear logical argument for
why software patents shouldn't exist.
(b) other people think that patents in general have limited
social merit and that software patents are highly negative
(c) some people believe (with reason) that software patents
will kill FOSS.
(d) patents might become less problematic if the patent
office started enforcing current precedents
(e) for current patents, the presumption of validity is
problematic
(f) for current patents, small companies do not have the
resources to fend off lawsuits. Large companies are less
impacted.
(g) the USPTO and inventors are both motivated to grant
overbroad patents and do poor searches on prior art
(h) there are some examples where software patents arguably
did encourage innovation
(i) there are a lot of examples where software patents
arguably discourage innovation
--Erwin
*Y'know - people are different - they spend a lot of time
learning how to use a specific mental toolset. Programmers
tend to use math and logic... Lawyers tend to prefer
modestly modifying regulations... Scientists tend to be good
at solving tiny little puzzles... Engineers tend to document
stuff... Businessmen can be good at understanding
incentives... Politicians are sometimes good at getting
people to work together...
Aptitude/training shapes people's views on every issue -
including software patents. And - those views - considered
from some perspectives - are perfectly valid. Solutions that
appeal to only one sort of person are not likely to be
implemented ever. Harping on those views isn't likely to be
persuasive and will probably prevent progress on issues
where progress is possible. I wonder whether or not it
would be good to accept that there are some areas where
valid disagreement exists and just proceed from there.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 06:10 AM EDT |
Thank you for the time and effort to discuss these issues. This is a much needed
and much welcome debate.
I am afraid that given how people here (including me) are adamant about there
positions, this might have been at times a rough treatment. I am a bit sorry
about this. As poster Erwin says, at times like this it may be best to agree to
disagree. This doesn't solve the underlying issue but at least it keeps the
discussions more civil.
I feel that while we have discussed some topics in some depth, we have barely
scratched the surface of others. You are a groklaw member now, and there will be
other patents discussions. The other topics will be raised again. I really hope
you will come again and participate in these further discussions. I will welcome
you anytime you please to show up.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
