|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
Teaching the unwashed masses ( i.e. patent lawyers and their ilk ) that
patenting software equal patenting ideas not inventions might not be easy. They
first have to understand what software is. How do one teach them that?
What is possible to patent should already be obvious from the current patent
law.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
I'm more inclined to say software patents are bad for two reasons:
1)
Software is abstract. Abstract concepts are not patentable subject matter.
Math is not patentable because math is an abstract concept. Language is not
patentable because language is an abstract concept. Ergo: Software, because
it's an abstract concept, is not patentable!
"Abstract concept" of course
meaning "can be done in the mind, done with pencil and paper". I sure wish I
could find that quote where the Supreme's stated the pencil and paper
bit.
2) To perform the process "enter 2+2= on device and read result" is no
different then "write 2+2= on paper and understand result". This is bad because
it reverses the core intent of Patent Law. The core intent being "grant limited
monopoly in exchange for disclosing an idea publicly". By reversal, I mean: it
takes an idea the public already knows and tries to remove it from the public
domain!
Of course, having the Supremes state "simply using math on a device
is not patentable subject matter" is a pretty big bonus ;)
As for your
post, I did read it in the light you outlined. I merely originally responded to
Ian Al's suggestion that I've gone mad.
Just because I chose to focus on
something else to what someone else wants to focus on isn't proof I've gone
mad.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
"Software is math" is not an argument that software patents are bad.
It is a slogan summarizing facts about computer science that current case law
ignores. It is a plea to have a more sensible interpretation of the law based on
a technically correct understanding of reality.
We need a different argument to show software patents are bad. Without this
argument, there are people who will interpret any finding that software isn't
patentable as a bug to be fixed. They will actively seek ways to patent
software. These people have position of power in the Federal Circuit and in
Congress.
"Software is math" is a factual basis for a better interpretation of
patent law as it currently stands.
"Software patents are bad" is a statement of what public policy should
be.
We need both type of arguments.
If you ask me why software patents are bad, I wouldn't talk about abstract
ideas, algorithms or math. This won't convince the people we need to convince
because they don't care about this stuff. They think of this type of arguments
as obstacles to overcome.
I would just say operating companies making real products can't clear all patent
rights to the software they write. There are thousands of software functions in
any software of substantial size when you look down at the subroutine level.
Each of these functions is patentable individually. Clearing all patent rights
requires thousands of patent searches. Thousands of patents will turn up in
these searches. How long does it take to read and assess all these patents? I am
not arguing on how many patents are infringed. Maybe the answer is zero. I am
arguing on how much work it is to verify no patent are infringed. Even in an
ideal world where there is no trolls, no overbroad functional claims and the
USPTO diligently search for prior art, thousands of software functions still
means thousands of patents to read and assess. Operating companies can't do that
and remain in business.
I think this argument will convince some people who think software patents are
good. They will understand it makes life impossible to operating companies, even
in an idea scenario where there are no trolls and no wrongly issued patents.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 12 2013 @ 06:31 AM EDT |
Convincing the 'man in the street' that software patents are inherently bad
needs something that is easily understandable by folk who don't (consciously)
use abstract ideas or mathematics in their daily life or work in the 'hi tech'
industries.
The 'software is maths' argument has certainly convinced me but it's pushing
against an open door in my case - the majority of people aren’t software
engineers.
The 'Industry is being harmed' argument is also very persuasive but how many
folk really understand the full extent of the damage caused or (sorry to say
this) really care about the squabbles between big businesses.
Generally speaking, explaining the working of software is a major turn off to
Joe Public, the terms used are unfamiliar and the concepts seem quite exotic.
Throw in legal jargon and 'novel' interpretations of common words and little
wonder that we lose their attention.
So we come down to drawing parallels with the 'real world' situations that we
all find ourselves in.
My thrupence worth.
Writing a software function is very similar to planning a journey.
Inputs:
What vehicle do I have at my disposal, who (or what) are we taking with us, how
far is it, do I need to go via a certain place, do I need to avoid a certain
place, do I need a hotel, what time of day are we travelling, how long do I have
to get there and so on.
Output
When shall I leave.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pseudo Function:
dateTime timeToAirport(startLocation, endLocation, timeOfDay, vehicleType, …) {
…
return leaveHomeAt.
}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, imagine - the route you planned has already been 'patented'
You may not use this route if you use a car and plan to pick up a parcel.
You may not use this route if you use a car and plan to pick up a person.
You may use this route if you use a car and plan to pick up a parcel.
You may use this route if you use a motorbike to pick up a person as long as
it's not on a Tuesday.
Or
You may not use this route for any purpose if it was generated by a computer.
Anyway, just a thought. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
