Software Patents

[BobThePenguin]

mskeel:

Your like to bad patents makes me believe things are worse off than I had thought. It took about 5 minutes to convince myself that NewScientist was not a satire magazine but actually reporting the truth. How the heck did Bill get away with patenting the click? I almost hope that he bribed someone in the patent office because the alternative is the people running the patent office are only slightly dumber than the desk my computer sits on and that is more frightening, especially if you start thinking about what people could patent using DNA (I call first dibs on conception ).

 

[mskeel]

It's not that the patent folks are dumb, I think it's more that the whole patenting concept is directed at traditional engineering disciplines. Similiarly to why building software is difficult, determining what software is and is not patentable is also very hard to do. Software is just so abstract and not well understood that anyone not eyeballs deep in any single peice of software will never really know what is going on. It's easy to look at a paper clip and see it, hold it, understand how it works and it's purpose -- the 'is not' operator, if you've never written code before, may be a little difficult.

And here's a funny thought, since all digital media eventually reduces down to a series of binary instructions -- be it music, literature, or pictures -- what if you had the exclusive rights to 1011 or something similiar...would that mean that you own a little peice of digital media (or at least the ones that have a 1011 in the somwhere?) A little silly, yes, but it would be quite a problem...

 

[DiverDan]

Actually the whole concept of patents is very deceiving. As mentioned earlier, when it comes to patent infringement, he with the most money wins, regardless if they are right or wrong. There is patent protection insurance available, but it is VERY, VERY expensive! Realistically this means if a large company wants your idea and they have more money than you then they will probably succeed in stealing it.

In the US, once the patent is granted it is published for anyone to see...and copy.
In Europe and Asia, the contents of the patent are published for anyone to see and copy before the patent is granted.

In my opinioin the best form of protection is to constantly stay ahead of the competition in product development and marketing (known as KAIZEN), not a patent.

 

[BobThePenguin]

It's not that the patent folks are dumb, I think it's more that the whole patenting concept is directed at traditional engineering disciplines...

Well, heres the reason I think that stupidity has to play some factor in it: I can get behind the idea of patenting the mouse itself. That falls under the traditional engineering bit. It is something whose specific purpose is to interact with a computer via a trackball and buttons. Thats all good. Now what bothers me is how someone could claim not to have invented the mouse but rather invented the way it interacts with the computer.

An analogy seems to be the steering wheel in a car. I can understand patenting the steering wheel itself but the idea that you want to patent just the idea of turning the car when you turn the wheel seems nuts. If the car didnt turn when you turn the wheel then it wouldnt be a steering wheel would it? Likewise, if the mouse didnt interact with the computer, it wouldnt be a mouse. Substitute whatever PDA's use for interaction and I think the same argument applies.

I know there's a hole in my argument somewhere I just cant see it. And I'm not convinced it is a fatal flaw either but I know its there and it nags at me.

Anyway, I agree that there are some things that are very tricky to determine whether they are patent-worthy or not. I just dont think this is one of them. I can actually agree (on some level) with the patenting of the is not operator. But that is only because they patented it in regards to BASIC applications. If they had tried to patent it for all computers then it would be silly in the same way the double-click idea is silly.


And in regards to patenting the 1011 number, you should see some of the strangeness that went on with the DeCSS (i think thats what it was, the algorithm to crack dvd encryption) Now, the algorithm itself was made illegal at some point. Ok, thats fine. copyright infringement and all that. Now, there is a problem because the algorithm itself isnt very long. Think they had contests and got it down to like 6 or 7 lines (excluding look-up tables). Now, you can compress the text it takes to store the 6 or 7 lines using any number of zip programs. So the zip file is then illegal. But wait, all the zip file is is a binary number. So what happens when you translate the number into base-10? Do we have our first illegal number? What happens if I need to use it in an equation or accidentally get it as a result from something completely unrelated? Can they come and haul me off to jail?

Also, what happens if I want to paint a picture of the algorithm? Or what happens if I want to generate a picture based on the illegal number? is the generated picture now illegal?

 

[mskeel]

What happens if I need to use it in an equation or accidentally get it as a result from something completely unrelated? Can they come and haul me off to jail?

That is too funny! I'm sure it would come down to whether you had malicous intent, but it really makes the whole situation seem so silly. A book written in English and then translated to Japanese is still the same book, right? Still held to the same copyright laws...why would translating it to a number be any different? But you can't copyright numbers, so how can you copyright anything? HA HAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!

Back to patent talk though,

In my opinioin the best form of protection is to constantly stay ahead of the competition in product development and marketing (known as KAIZEN), not a patent.

I completely agree...but there must be something more than continued, exhuastive innovation to protect yourself. right? KAIZEN, that is awesome. I dig, man, good word.