decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
A question of form... | 364 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Pseudo code is Source code!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 10:34 AM EST
And also necessary to describe fully the algorithm which one is attempting to
patent.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Source code not needed
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 02:15 PM EST

Of course, specifying an algorithm makes it plain that it IS an algorithm, and not patentable.
But surely an Algorithm is the full, clear, concise, and exact terms [USPTO] which would allow any programmer to make the patented "Software" invention, but if, as you say, algorithms are unpatentable, then software inventions as they require an algorithm (to describe in full, clear, concise and exact terms how to make them) must be unpantentable.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Please define pseudo code :-)
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:25 PM EST
And for your amusement:

In one olden-days project i was involved in ('the'
programming language was FORTRAN-77), there was a requirement
that all code had to be presented in pseudo-code before
implementation.

Upon asking what was considered pseudo-code, we where told
that was a complete and unambiguous description of the
functionality of the unit in a format for which no compiler
exists (*).

One part of the project was 'allowed' to be programmed in
'C'. That part was used to implement a script-interpreter.

The gentleman who was in charge of that part managed to get
past the pseudo-code inspection stage by presenting as
pseudo-code a set of slightly-obfuscated (sed...) yacc/lex
input files. He managed to set record time in going from
pseudo-code to a working solution. He also -as turned out-
was the only one whose 'pseudo-code' needed no modifications
upon being implemented.

(*) On a side-note: i did propose to drop the requirement of
'no compiler exists', and next to present FORTRAN-77 source
as pseudo-code; That would have had the advantage that we had
an automatic checker for the completeness and unambiguity:
the FORTRAN-77 compiler... And: yes, after that experience
'we' quickly learned how to use sed to 'hop' between code and
pseudo-code.

One lesson from that experience is still with me today: i
write the (almost..) complete comment for a program first (is
almost pseudo-code, but needs not be complete/unambiguous),
and 'fill in' the statements between the comment lines later.

My point w.r.t. the 'parent' in reference to pseudo-code:

- If you allowing only complete/unambiguous pseudo-code, you
have 'just' re-written your software invention in a badly-
defined and/or unknown programming language, possibly
introducing errors in the process.

- If you'd allow incomplete/ambiguous pseudo-code, you've
swapped fuzzy 'legalese' for fuzzy pseudo-code in a patent
application.

Rather than to allow 'just' source code in a patent
description of a software 'invention' i'd suggest requiring
well-documented (commented..) source code, in a form that can
be compiled using a well-described programming language,
compiler and run-time environment. A bit like what the GPL
requires of sources for re-distribution.

In that form, one 'skilled in the art' can indeed study and
learn from the patent-description of the invention, as is the
stated foundation of the concept of granting a patent.

One problem is that doing so would all too well expose that
the software invention itself is an abstract idea.

A bit off-topic: If progress in field of software is however
counted only in the number of patents granted, then
incomprehensible legalese and binary magic is the way to go.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • addendum... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 12:48 AM EST
    • addendum... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 09:58 AM EST
  • Addendum #2 - Helpful twist - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 06:13 AM EST
Source code not needed
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:37 PM EST
Source code or pseudo-code should absolutely be required.
It's very simple to describe an idea or algorithm. It's something different
entirely to actually have created an implementation. Just because you have an
idea of something to create, doesn't mean you have the technical skill to
actually implement it. Proof should absolutely be required. Until you've created
a prototype you haven't created anything.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A question of form...
Authored by: mtew on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 09:45 AM EST

The main problem I see with requiring source code is that the result is much too specific and would require an expert to do the matching. On the other hand the disclosure requirement has to be implemented somehow.

Does a form exist that is both explicit enough to express the level of detail required and fuzzy enough to make the matching process practical?

While I am not familiar enough with the details to be able to actually provide a definitive answer, I think this is very similar to the goals of Pattern Definition Languages.

Comments please. Here or in a new main topic?

---
MTEW

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Source code needed not overboard..
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 03:24 PM EST
The PTO already has a procedure in place that amounts to "show me a
working model" and a standard form for it should you attempt to patent a
perpetual motion machine. Patented software should be no different.

Also, source code, in a reasonably standard language, such as C, is a
lingua franca among those skilled in the art of software, and is certainly
sufficient to particularly and clearly describe the concrete essence of a
piece of software to be patented. Writing it down in supposed English just
obfuscates matters.

Not that I am for software patents... But if they are allowed, the implicit
tradeoff is clearly disclosing the technique in return for exclusivity.


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )