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
I agree and disagree. | 364 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:02 AM EST


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:04 AM EST
Please include a link to the article you are referencing as they will roll off of the main page.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:06 AM EST
Please make links clickable.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes docs here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:07 AM EST


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

group consensus advice will not be sought....
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:14 AM EST
That tells you right there that it is
all a sham, and will be an exercise by
the darkside into determining who they
can control or buy off. Complacent parties
will be welcomed, so they can spin the charade
to the public that the sham is in the public interest.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The USPTO Would Like to Partner with the Software Community ... Wait. What? Really? ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:28 AM EST
The UK patent office attempted a similar but smaller consultation when the
european directive was being debated. The outcome was not to the UK patent
office liking:
http://www.zdnet.com/patent-campaigners-make-government-breakthrough-3039181169/


Despite this outcome it did not stop the UK government from agreeing the
directive - fortunately it got thrown out by the European Parliament

Given the strength of business interest lobbying in the US I suspect your
outcome will be an even more relaxed approach - good luck.

[ Reply to This | # ]

how to "enhance" the quality of software patents
Authored by: myNym on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:31 AM EST
Uh. Don't issue them. Software patents are illegal.

(Or should be. I am not a lawyer.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Must use MS formats?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:44 AM EST
I wonder how they'd react if everyone on the anti-software-patent side sent
their presentations in as ISO/IEC 26300:2006/Amd 1:2012 format? (That's
OpenDocument's ISO number according to wikipedia)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Process or machine?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 04:49 AM EST
The question I would have addressed is whether software patents describe a new
machine or a new process.

If the idea is that a "computer + program" creates a new machine, it
should be recognized that a "computer + data" also produces a new
machine. Should not then (to be consistent) "data" be considered
patentable subject matter?

If it is the 'process' of the computer reading the software that is being
patented then why are the software producers being held liable for infringement?
They are not performing the process, they are merely producing instructions on
how the process should be performed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Should we the Groklaw Community write a response?
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 05:28 AM EST
it should be fairly straightforward for the Groklaw community
to write a submission including all the points we have
gathered to date into a single submission, using PolRs excellent articles as a
starting point is a significant
start...


---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2013 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are developers really anti-patent?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:39 AM EST
"Most developers I know believe software is unpatentable subject
matter."

I think this is as much a comment on the type of developers that you know as it
is on patentability.

As a long-term commercial software developer, very few of the developers of
proprietary software that I've worked with over the years have any idea what I'm
talking about when I object to the concept of software patents, and all of the
companies have had active programs in place to encourage developers to submit
patent ideas, with significant bonus payments in place as carrots.

I have never personally become involved in the patent rat-race, but know many
colleagues that have, and many of the quite laughable concepts that have been
put forward as patentable material have proceeded to get patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whatever you do, don't mention the war!
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 07:19 AM EST
Software by its nature is operation-based and is typically embodied in the form of rules, operations, algorithms or the like. Unlike hardware inventions, the elements of software are often defined using functional language. While it is permissible to use functional language in patent claims, the boundaries of the functional claim element must be discernible...

Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (second paragraph prior to enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)) ensures that a claim is definite.
The Supreme Court in Mayo:
[T]he Government argues that virtually any step beyond a statement of a law of nature itself should transform an unpatentable law of nature into a potentially patentable application sufficient to satisfy §101’s demands. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae. The Government does not necessarily believe that claims that (like the claims before us) extend just minimally beyond a law of nature should receive patents. But in its view, other statutory provisions—those that insist that a claimed process be novel, 35 U. S. C. §102, that it not be “obvious in light of prior art,” §103, and that it be “full[y], clear[ly], concise[ly], and exact[ly]” described, §112—can perform this screening function. In particular, it argues that these claims likely fail for lack of novelty under §102.

This approach, however, would make the “law of nature” exception to §101 patentability a dead letter. The approach is therefore not consistent with prior law. The relevant cases rest their holdings upon section 101, not later sections. Bilski, Diehr, Flook, Benson. See also H. R. Rep. No. 1923, (“A person may have ‘invented’ a machine or a manufacture, which may include any thing under the sun that is made by man, but it is not necessarily patentable under section 101 unless the conditions of the title are fulfilled” (emphasis added)).

We recognize that, in evaluating the significance of additional steps, the §101 patent-eligibility inquiry and, say, the §102 novelty inquiry might sometimes overlap. But that need not always be so. And to shift the patent eligibility inquiry entirely to these later sections risks creating significantly greater legal uncertainty, while assuming that those sections can do work that they are not equipped to do.
§101 Says that 'any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof', is patentable subject matter. This means that inventions 'typically embodied in the form of rules, operations, algorithms or the like' are not statutory subject matter.

The Supreme Court has, many times, pointed out that it is a waste of time and money considering issues of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) if ' topics relating to patents that are particularly relevant to the software community' are easily addressed by considering §101, first.

Software by its nature is operation-based and is typically embodied in the form of rules, operations, algorithms or the like. Unlike hardware inventions, the elements of software are often defined using functional language. While it is permissible to use functional language in patent claims, the boundaries of the functional claim element must be discernible...

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scope of argument
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 07:37 AM EST
"I know the USPTO doesn't want to hear that software and
patents totally need to get a divorce, but since most
software developers believe that, maybe somebody should at
least mention it to them, if only as a future topic for
discussion."

At the risk of violating something akin to Godwin's law, I
cannot help but think of how the situation resembles the
U.S. dispute over slavery from the 1820's to the civil war
(note that I am in no way suggesting that software patents
are remotely as wrong as slavery).

Just as the USPTO doesn't want to hear that software patents
should be abolished, it was not considered appropriate or
realistic to mention the abolition of slavery.
"Abolitionist" was a dirty word, much like "communist" or
"radical" in the 1950s. Anyone who suggested that there was
any moral problem with racial enslavement was considered to
be inciting terrorism, particularly after the Nat Turner
rebellion. Abolition could not be discussed on the floor of
the U.S. Congress, nor could anti-slavery literature be sent
through the mail. Great concern was held for the economic
rights of slaveholders, who after all had invested huge sums
of money to acquire their "property". Anti-slavery
discussion was limited to whether the "peculiar institution"
should be allowed to spread into new states and territories,
and how to maintain the "proper" balance of political power
between free and slave states. Until nearly the end of the
Civil War, elimination of slavery was politically off the
table even for the Union.

So I think we are in a miniature version of this in the
dispute over software patents. The USPTO may be willing to
talk about minor issues at the edges, but the core issue is
that software patents are simply wrong - all of them, with
no exceptions. It is a fatally flawed idea. As RMS put it,
if someone independently programs a solution to a software
problem, when should anyone else ever be allowed to prevent
that? The answer is never, not under any circumstances. The
monied interests may not want that issue to be raised, but
that really is the issue.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Source code not needed
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 10:00 AM EST
The comment that source code should be required, I feel, is
slightly overboard. While software patents are WAY to
generally specified, detail pseudo code showing in detail
(sorry for the department of redundancy department speak)
the algorithm should be sufficient. (Of course, specifying
an algorithm makes it plain that it IS an algorithm, and not
patentable.)
After all, if the patent covers the idea, then the
particular language used to implement the idea is
irrelevant, hence the actual source code (a particular
language implementation) is also irrelevant.
Disclaimers: I have software patents (done as a defensive
move), and do not believe any algorithm (implemented in
software or otherwise) should be patentable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The USPTO Would Like to Partner with the Software Community ... Wait. What? Really? ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 10:33 AM EST

And you should have to provide source code. No excuses. If the point is that the public is supposed to get something out of patent law beyond higher prices, and if it's supposed to be specific enough that someone skilled in the art can know how to duplicate it, surely source code is required.
Requiring Source Code is akin to the implementation, but if a physical patented device requires a nut and bolt of a certain size and I don't have one, but use a substitute which works perfectly fine, then am I in breach of the patent or not? Similarly, if the supplied source code was Z8000 assembler and I program the "invention" in 68000 assembler have I infringed the patent or not?

But source code is protected by Copyright, so why the need for a patent as well?

The requirement should be that the algorithm is clearly written out so that any programmer could follow it and code it in whatever language they like (and get it to perform in the same way), just as the USPTO requires:

The specification must include a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the technological area to which the invention pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.
Very few software patents actually so this: full, clear, concise and exact terms would be the algorithm; they are woolly and very broad. For example, Euclid's algorithm to find the highest common factor of two numbers:

Currently it would be something like:

Claim 1. A method whereby two numbers are input and their highest common factor output.
Claim 2. It is ascertained that the difference between the quotient of the division of the dividend by the divisor and the same, ignoring partial results multiplied by the divisor and the quotient is zero or not.
Claim 3. Claim 2 is further extended by use of such ascertainment to a further decision being made to modify the numbers so that ascertainment of a second level can be made as to that which was originally sought.
Claim 4. By use of claims 2 and 3 the the output will be of a desired result.

Along with more waffle that may, or may more likely not, actually describe how to do it; whereas what should be required is something like:

1. Find the remainder of the first number divided by the second
2. If the remainder is not zero, make the second number the first number and the remainder the second number and repeat from step 1
3. The highest common factor is the second number.

Alternatively, I could write it as:

1. Let the two numbers be N1 and N2
2. find the remainder R when N1 is divide by N2
3. If R is not zero, let N1 be N2 and N2 be R and repeat from step 2
4. The Highest Common Factor is N2

Either of those tell anyone who wants to program Euclid's algorithm clearly exactly how to do it: the actual lines of code to do it are left up to the programmer; for example in C:

int hcf(n1, n2)
int n1, n2;
{
int r;
for (; r = n1 % n2; n2 = r) n1 = n2;
return n2;
}

In BASIC, Pascal, Fortran, the code would be different, eg BBC Basic:

10 DEF FN_hcf(n1, n2)
20 LOCAL r
30 REPEAT
40 r = n1 MOD n2: n1 = n2 : n2 = r
50 UNTIL r = 0
60 = n1

Or in SuperBASIC on a QL:

10 DEFine FuNction hcf(n1, n2)
20 LOCal lp, r
30 REPeat lp
40 r = n1 MOD n2: if r = 0: EXIT lp
50 n1 = n2, n2 = r
60 END REPeat lp
70 RETurn n2
80 END DEFine

All different source codes, all designed for different environments, but all execute the same algorithm*. If one source code was included, which one would it be? Also, would the other source codes be non-infringing?

So while I agree that a source could could be included, the actual algorithm that the source codes executes needs to be clearly written (as USPTO supposedly requires) - perhaps a standard pseudocode?

*There are subtle difference between the versions due to the size of integers that the modulus operator can utilise; the code could be written to trap for things like one (or both) numbers zero or negative IF it was used in an environment where rational inputs (ie both numbers greater than zero) cannot be guaranteed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Only Correct Action
Authored by: 351-4V on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 12:11 PM EST
maybe somebody should at least mention it to them
P.J. is right here of course. I'll go further and propose that the only correct course of action is to insist upon an end to software patents with no further discussion. Too extreme you say? While I normally agree that dialog and the compromise resulting from cooperation are usually for the best, I must take exception in this case.

If we agree to "partner" with them and commence a discussion of how to fix software patents, we have already compromised and allowed their argument in favor of software patents. The moment we open this dialog, we concede our main point and gain nothing in return. This is not compromise, this is capitulation.

No doubt there will be many well-intentioned people of high repute that will engage the USPTO in a discussion of how to fix a software patent and I wish them well. But do not be surprised when this spirit of cooperation and compromise is spun in a press release that claims "Major software authors see need for patents". This will not happen only because of malice, but it will happen honestly as well because if you are talking with someone about fixing something, you are implicitly supporting the thing's existence.

I do support discussion and dialog with the USPTO but that discussion should be limited to how to dismantle the software patents that exist at the present time and how to create a developer environment free of software patents altogether.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Quality software patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 12:22 PM EST
I think that the argument that software should simply not be patentable should
be made. Get it on the record. But we also have to realistically recognize
that such an argument will not be accepted. So we need to do like we've seen a
number of legal teams do: We make multiple arguments. If one is not accepted,
we hope that the next one is.

If software patents are not going to be completely prohibited, how do we limit
the damage? One way is by making them less vague, less "covering
everything under the sun". How do we do that?

One way is by using the phrase "one ordinarily skilled in the art".
My proposal is that the USPTO hire a bunch of programmers who are
"ordinarily skilled in the art" - say, three to five years experience.
(Five years is where you start getting into "senior software
engineer" territory.) Each software patent application is handed to three
of the USPTO's software guys. Each one makes a simple decision: Yes, given the
information in the application, I know how to implement that; or else No, I
don't know how to implement that because it's too vague. If the majority votes
No, the application is rejected because it does not contain sufficient detail to
enable one ordinarily skilled in the art to practice the invention.

They might also, at the same time, make a Yes or No vote on obviousness.

The point here is to get actual software people rather than just patent
examiners looking at the applications, and weeding out the junk that never
should have been patented. Weed out the vague patents that don't claim anything
concrete. Weed out the obvious stuff. We'd have a lot fewer problem patents.
(We'd still have software patents, which you may consider to be a problem in and
of itself, but I don't think we're going to win that battle this year.)

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Try A Moratorium
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 01:10 PM EST
1) It's easier to try something better if you can go back.

2) Find out that it's easier to run without shackles.

3) Don't attack the portfolio monsters, soothe them instead.

4) Keep old patents intact. They'll be worthless soon anyway.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nore patents = more revenue
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 01:42 PM EST

It seems to me that USPTO would like to make patents more specific and more
restricted so that the full width of a process can be covered by more patents.
More patents covering a specific area = more revenue for the patent office.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh please...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 02:23 PM EST
Groklaw is an amazing blog and I read it with regularity, but I read things like
this, I know you've hit your collective blind spot: "I know the USPTO
doesn't want to hear that software and patents totally need to get a divorce,
but since most software developers believe that, maybe somebody should at least
mention it to them, if only as a future topic for discussion."

For your information, my dear lawyers, it is CONGRESS and the COURTS that decide
what subject matter is considered patentable. The administration simply tries to
do the best they can to implement these overarching policies. They can't change
them. They'd be sued if they did.

Seriously, I understand how logic can be subverted by high emotions, but that
was embarrassing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Highly paid lobbyists will have a field day
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:02 PM EST
This "round table" will be stuffed with highly paid lobbyists and
lawyers from large corporations and patent trolls.

Joe Average Programmer will have to stand at the sideline and watch how the big
boys spin their story that software patents are absolutely needed to ensure
America's leadership and glory, and that being against software patents is
unamerican.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Throw out the SW Patents
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:20 PM EST
We definitely need to make sure someone brings up throwing out SW patents
wholesale.

They are unlikely to listen to it, but at least it will be on record.

There should also be a more moderate approach, but not too moderate. RMS's
suggestion on barring patents on general purpose computers is an excellent start
to clearing up the mess.

I feel that attempting to reason with them about math and algorithms is not
going to work well, so give them economic reasons as well. Show them how SW
development is so stifled by patents that any developer can be sued over just
about anything. Multiple times. Without warning. And that the developer can do
exactly NOTHING to avoid it except not write software. Searching a patent
database is no help at all. In fact, if they find out the developer happened to
glance at their patent, boom, treble damages.

Something needs to be said about how too many SW patents are so broad that they
cover huge segments of computing, even overlapping with other SW patents.

Many SW patents are so vague that even if you know about them in advance, there
is not much you can do to avoid infringing upon them. No implementation is
described.

The entire point of a patent is to encourage public publishing of an invention
to benefit the whole country. The incentive is the temporary monopoly granted to
practice the patent, after which the invention is available to all. SW patents
are written in such a way as to subvert this, being convoluted, vague, and
broad. The monopoly part is used (and abused) alright, but what happened to the
public publishing that is the entire point of the whole process?

If patents are no longer about publishing an invention, then why have them at
all?

Also, the technology industry moves at warp speed. A SW patent's term is a
lifetime in computing terms, so they at least need to be much shorter.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My favorite part
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:30 PM EST


"..an algorithm must be expressed in sufficient detail to provide means to
accomplish the claimed function."



---
a small fish in an even smaller pond

[ Reply to This | # ]

I agree and disagree.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:37 PM EST

I agree that software patents are mess right now. (I'd be insane not to.)
There are far too many patents issued for vague concepts and when there are tons
of prior art. So, yes, the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

But I disagree that they ALL software patents should eliminated.

It's probably a safe bet that someone, somewhere is developing a killer software
program, right now, that will do something completely new and unique. Maybe the
programmer has put a lot of time into perfecting it, hoping, someday, to get a
reward for their investment if hard work and originality.

Why in world would they do that, if on the first day after their software is put
on sale, Microsoft (or some other huge company) would "legally" steal
it and shut them out of any profit for all that hard work and dedication?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Kill treble damages
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:54 PM EST
The most common advice from a lawyer is don't read existing
patents because they lead to treble damages.

The incentives are strongly against reading and even
thinking about the patent system. When reading patents
takes time away from doing real work. When reading patents
makes you liable for more damages and more worth suing.
When patents can be asserted against preexisting code that
predates the patent.

If the goal is to improve patent quality we need at least to
remove the disincentives and likely to add incentives to
make it worth our time to look at patents. As it is the
sanest strategy seems to be to stick our collective heads in
the sand and ignore it and hope it all goes away, and if
that doesn't work to go stomp on Washington until patents
really do go away.

A business method patent for scanning a document and
emailing the scanned image. http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2013/01/patent-trolls-want-1000-for-using-scanners/.
It is going to take more than token reform or reaching out
to the software developers to make the patent system
palatable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The situation is unwinnable for Americans
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 07:35 PM EST
In the U.S., recent events and articles have shown the hand
of the patent judges and lawyers. The legal establishment
intends to pave all technologies with patents, from sea to
rising sea.

The meeting in California had two groups with different
professional credentials and incompatible views. The judges
and lawyers were talking down to the techies. The techies
were talking past the judges, lawyers, DOJ, and Commerce.

All Americans lose their rights to the 1 percent who intend
to own us.

My perception is that U.S. government employees crafted
their message including government policies in guarded
statements.

My expectation that the USPTO employees intend to drill
down to government doctrines, laws, and regulations.

In the future, all Americans will be told that a series
of open meetings vetted all this, that everyone had equal
opportunity to comment and recommend. Done deal.

These meetings are the wrong venue. This needs to go to
your senator and representative. You need facts, costs,
business models. You need to lawyer up if you disagree
with the bureaucracy. This goes way beyond software
patents in isolation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not Anti Patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 07:49 PM EST
I'm a software developer that has been in the industry since
94. And I'm not anti patent. What I am against is broad
patents, and patents granted without research done by the
USPTO before granting a patent.

You can't patent math, and you can't patent what is obvious.
Examples, while multi touch broadly cannot be patented,
using a specific multi-touch gesture to do a specific task
should be able to be patented.

Beyond that, I think that in order to hold a patent, you
should be required to get a product to market in a certain
timeframe, and that FRAND royalties should be be set in law
and set to be reasonable, as some percentage of the sale.
Lets say a maximum of 0.06 %. So if you sell an iPhone that
has a patent for X for 200$, then the royalty payment due to
the patent holder X for that device is 10 cents.

So to sum up, it should require research to make sure
there's no prior art, no broad patents, everything in the
patent must be specific, and granite locked FRAND royalties.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A challenge to any who think software is anything but Abstract
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:21 PM EST

Remember, the Supreme's have made it quite clear that abstract concepts are not patentable. Abstract defined:

    Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence of it's existence.
It is impossible to prove something does not exist. The best one can do is point to the absence. However, all it takes to prove something does exist is to point to a single facet.

So... on to the challenge:

    Point to a single example of the physical existence of Software!
All it takes is one!

If you can't point to a single piece of physical embodiment of software, then you can never prove software is anything but abstract!

I'll be posting some proofs to some common arguments as sub-posts to this challenge.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Software Patent Template
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:59 PM EST
  1. Begin with a collection of data elements obtained from a set of input devices.
  2. Use set of Algorithms on input data to produce:
  3. Desired new set of data elements.

The underlying fact is that a competent programmer experienced in the particular application space can for suitable remuneration code up whatever is desired given facilities and time.

The current situation is that software patents go to the first large business that can afford patent lawyers that hires software developers to implement something others have not yet done.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Software patents are like..
Authored by: myNym on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 12:03 AM EST
Imagine in the not too distant future, when human-like
robots become available.

Rather than having to teach the robots everything from
scratch, the robots have an ability to download teaching-
sets.

Now, imagine patent lawyers applying the same logic of
"computer + software" to "robots + instructions"..

And patenting:

a "grocery fetching robot"
an "automotive repair robot"
a "crocheting robot"

etc etc etc.

That's what the so-called "computer + software" patents are.
They are taking a piece of hardware and using it for exactly
what it was ever capable of doing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What are software developers?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 12:37 AM EST

We are the people who author self help material.

Only instead of authoring a how-to book for a human to set the clock on the VCR, we author how-to books for electronics so the computer sets the clock on the vcr at the appropriate time.

Why should I regularly push buttons if I can tell the electronics to set the electronic signal for me?

We are the authors: software is our how-to book that the computation device can work with!

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

The USPTO Would Like to Partner with the Software Community ... Wait. What? Really? ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 12:18 PM EST
US patent and copyright law derive from the power
given to Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

I want to point out that the particular words
express an *intent* ("To Promote the Progress of
Science and Useful Arts") in their empowering
of Congress to make relevant law, as well as
an effective *recommendation* of how to implement
the intent ("... , by securing for limited Times to
Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries; ..."

ISTM that where legislation according to an
interpretation of the recommendation part results
in a sabotage of the intent, such law should be declared
unconstitutional.

HTH form part of an argument against software patents.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Charged particles
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 02:54 AM EST
Charged particles are just as material as wires. If a new
circuit
created by rewiring old parts in a new and original way is
patentable,
then a new circuit created by depositing or removing charged
particles
from memory cells is also patentable. The new machine
consists of the
parts of the old machine plus the charges introduced into
memory cells.
That these charged particles are invisible and flow easily
over and
through wires makes no difference. They're part of the new
machine.

Now whether or not the new machine is obvious is another
question. The
tools available today make the creation of new machines very
easy.
Solutions to many problems are obvious after someone else
has done the
hard work of writing a compiler for a programming language.
I think this is the
idea that need emphasizing, that inventing a new machine
today isn't hard. The
ease with which these new machines are created is
obscured by the exercise of framing these inventions as
complicated
computer systems. They're not. Literally millions of people
can create a
new machine with freely available tools using software as a
description
of the new machine. I get the impression sometimes that many
"software
patents" are written with the goal of convincing the reader
that their
inventiveness includes the construction of an entire
computing machine.

Most here know better, of course. But a jury might be awed.
Maybe that's
the aim of the inventor.

Many "software patents" would fall, I think, if all the
details of the general computing system were stripped away
from the patent leaving the few lines of
pseudo-code the inventor claims are worthy of a patent.










[ Reply to This | # ]

The USPTO Would Like to Partner with the Software Community ... Wait. What? Really? ~pj
Authored by: albert on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 05:37 PM EST
In that the USPTO is only interested in making money, this seems like a
publicity ploy* to me. Bad patents make big money. Software patents are ideal
for this, for reasons which everyone here knows too well.


* "just look, we're trying to do better"

They won't do anything that cuts into their bottom line.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I have a dream - Administration changes might fix software patents...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 08 2013 @ 07:36 AM EST
I see two issues; the first is that software patents don't 'teach', and the
second is that most software patents are too vague.

So first - Software patents don't 'teach', and most software developers don't
read them.

Partly because software patents:
* are difficult to interpret
* cost money per instance of use

Partly because software developers:
* can be punished for knowing infringement
* can replace any software patent by work done once

And second software patents are too vague...

Most Troll patents are so vague that they 'teach' no workable concrete thing or
application and yet the patent can be interpreted in the courts to capture a
very large number of future concrete applications; applications that where not
anticipated when the patent was submitted.

Even good patents are written so that they can capture the value of as much of
the future as possible... The distinction between trollish behaviour and normal
patent suits is that, as a non-practicing-entity, the troll can be completely
unreasonable in exploiting the patent monopoly, as they are not vulnerable to
retaliation.

By addressing the language that patents are written in we could start to address
both of the above issues..

Rather than patents expressed in legalese, which lacks the clarity of the worst
textbook or academic paper, we could have them expressed in a programming
language.

The patent claims (or program) can be made concrete with the addition of pre-
and post- conditions for each function.

The compiler requires that the claims be concrete.
If the patent does not compile, it is rejected.

Old software patents that are legislated over are first converted to the
concrete form by a court appointed expert.

Old software patents are converted by the patent office examiners in the time
that is freed up as a compiler evaluates the validity of new patent
applications..

ps: I would also like a pink pony.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Simple solution
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 08:10 PM EST
Require all patents to be presented to the patent office as

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )