|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 12:01 PM EST |
In which case, what's the point of patenting it? The patent will expire before
the calculation is complete.
Or do you mean that no human could calculate it? At which point you run into the
problem of the "idiot savant". Who, for example, are capable of doing
long division faster than any normal person can bash it into a calculator. And
often to a higher precision than the calculator is capable of.
While many calculations may be beyond the wit of a normal person, some people
can do "impossible" maths without difficulty.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Trachtenberg - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 04:10 PM EST
- Trachtenberg - Authored by: Wol on Monday, February 11 2013 @ 01:14 PM EST
- Trachtenberg - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 11 2013 @ 05:42 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 01:43 PM EST |
You make some good points, but I still think this will not help matters.
The problem still remain:
How do you determine how long a problem takes to calculate? Not everything has
an accompanying formula that will tell you how long it will take to calculate it
(i.e. mersenne primes). And if you do, what type of person do you take as your
benchmark (mathematician, theoretical mathematician, professor)? How many of
them? Do you have different standards for different kinds of problems?
A bigger problem: what data set are you operating on? Algorithms can often take
varying sizes of data, and a larger set will usually mean a longer calculation
time. Won't lawyers simply find the largest set they think they can justify? If
so, ANY algorithm can be patented because any algorithm can be given giant
numbers and huge data sets. I can even patent the area formula of a rectangle,
"with a computer," if I do the calculation in nanometers ("hey,
we need to be very precise"). It might be different if I trusted the USPTO
to be intelligent about cases like that, but, seeing the patents that are being
approved these days, I do not have confidence in them.
Basically, you are agreeing that the abstract should not be patentable, except
when it is very complex. Therefore, you are saying that complex abstract
concepts are patentable. If true, then why stop at computers? Why not make any
abstract concept patentable if it will take more than a human lifetime to use?
The answer is that no one cares about other concepts, because the only
"complex" abstract concepts that make money are done "with a
computer."
Another thing is that there is still that nagging "with a computer"
meme. Adding a computer to an abstract concept does not produce a concrete
construct or a changed machine. Programming a computer merely puts instructions
in memory that, deep down, control the ordered operation of digital logic gates.
The nature of the computer is not changed, it is still doing what it was
designed to do (i.e. run logic gates and pass signals that it does not itself
understand). The complexity/length of the instructions has no bearing on the
above, even if there are millions of lines of code.
Why give software a special pass? Why does it need special additional protection
on top of copyright? Why should someone be able to patent "complex"
motion gestures (involving "complex" math), and prevent anyone else
from using them? Does that help the tech industry to advance? Doesn't that chill
development? Doesn't that enable NPEs (i.e. trolls) to grab patents and prevent
people from producing products while they produce nothing but litigation
revenue? Doesn't that result in more and more litigation that saps more money
from development and hold things back even more?
I prefer to stick to the principle that abstract = not patentable. It avoids
grey areas that lawyers can and WILL use to their advantage.
Something that just occurred to me is that, if you use your idea, they will then
have to provide the algorithms to justify their patents. That I would not mind,
because I am willing to bet >90% of all algorithms can be shown to be very
simple. But the rest of the idea opens the door to more of the same: a tech
industry in legal chaos.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
