Software Patents

[Shurikn]

This discussion come up every day at SlashDot, but I wanted to ask people who are using this forum what they think about it. To get the feel of developers like me who needs help sometime...

 

Imagine a world where bubble sort is patented.... (not the best but probably the most used sort method due to it's simplicity[in beginers program anyway])

 

I am completly againts it, but maybe I should not count since I love Open source?

 

Anyway what do you think about software patent?

[EFileTahi-A]

I truely dislike the ideia of "Software Patents" just by typing it it gave me the creeps. Software Patents is one of the most stupid things that I ever heard untill now, well maybe not stupid but incredibly full of TIRANY! What's the concept about this anyway? Giving rights to the authors by removing rights from other people?

 

Just what are they trying to do? Image a world where everything is Patented, creatives like myself would be totally screwed up by having to pay loads of monney for each step I would need to make, because someone else comitted the same step before me, and that step was patented already. Too bad I just born 1978 making impossible to be the first one to create "that thing"...

 

This is not protection, this is removing freedom away from persons. Imagine the ideia of online monney transitions being patented, the ideia of sharing files through an P2P software being patented, the ideia of patenting symbols like ":)", ";)", ":D", ":(" etc. for digital emontion purppose...

 

Please...

[Shurikn]

What's the concept about this anyway? Giving rights to the authors by removing rights from other people?

 

I love that Quote!

[Joe Mamma]

with regards to US patent law. . .

 

I believe if you research it you will find that the PTO has protected both hackers and commercial developers by defining what makes software patentable. . .

 

specifically. . . software as a class is not patentable.

 

on the other hand. . .

 

a process that uses a piece of software can be patented. . . i.e. If I develop a process that uses a specific algorithm to achieve a desired effect, I can patent the use of that algorithm in the course of that process to achieve that effect.

 

The case cited was a rubber process. . .

 

a particular software application was used to control the timing of rubber curing. . . the patent office was forced by the supreme court to award a patent. Rightly in my opinion. But the patent applies only to using the algorithm in the process of curing rubber.

 

If I can come up for another application of the algorithm in some other process. . . I am free to patent that algorithm/process.

 

therefore. . . software is not patentable in the US.

But ingenuity is. . . and rightly so!!!!

 

Now . .. dont confuse copyright, trademark and patent. . . these are all different beasts!!!

[EFileTahi-A]

I love that Quote!

 

"I do what I can..." by Riddick: Escape From Butchers Bay ;)

Edited July 21, 2005 by EFileTahi-A

[EFileTahi-A]

Well, I also would love to add the following:

 

The patents only exist because prophit exist, if there would be no such thing as "monney", patentes would be a useless thing, right? Since the major feature of patents is to set exclusive rights granted by a government to an inventor or applicant for a limited amount of time (normally maximum 20 years from the filing date, depending on extension) and some of these rights involve prophit (wow!).

 

The funny thing about patention is that many, many patentionated invetions actually never even touch the market, so why bothering patent it? "Because I can make monney if someone invents the same thing I did and if he/she tries to make use of it in comercial ways". This smells like greedy holly crap to me. I can actually understand (well, maybe) patenting something for prophit, but, pateting something just for "sport", I better no comment on this, it might be offensive...

 

If I invent a some sort of an unique algorithm to acomplish something really cool why would I bother to patent it? I do agree that the author of it should get the credit for it, but, restricting someone of using it is unatural greedy! if you don't want ppl to use your so called "invention" then keep it to your self and make sure it will be buried along with your corpse giving this way other persons a chance of creating the same thing to freely use it on their desired way.

 

I would definetely share my revolucionary algorithm by open-source it so that persons could learn from it and pass this acknowleged to everyone else...

 

The world we live in is as we know it because ppl shared their ideias and inventions all over the time.

I'm glad our ancestors are not here to charge us for using the wheel and fire... I also can't imagine a stone-age individual keeping his discoveries just for him instead of sharing them with rest of his tribe...

Edited July 22, 2005 by EFileTahi-A

[Joe Mamma]

again. . .

 

at least in the US. . . algorithms are not patentable.

 

I can't patent a new sort routine or a new compression algorithm.

 

But I can the patent the use an algorithm in a particular process as a means to a proprietary end. . .

[thenerd]

The funny thing about patention is that many, many patentionated invetions actually never even touch the market, so why bothering patent it? "Because I can make monney if someone invents the same thing I did and if he/she tries to make use of it in comercial ways". This smells like greedy holly crap to me. I can actually understand (well, maybe) patenting something for prophit, but, pateting something just for "sport", I better no comment on this, it might be offensive...

 

Nobody parents for sport, you're not understanding:

Someone invents something.

They patent it

Some people would market this idea, but it takes a lot of money to market something. So, they don't. The reason they hold the patent is so that later on, hopefully, someone who has money to invest will pay them for their invention and market it themselves. It's not like people are patenting things with the intention to sue other people.

[EFileTahi-A]

again. . .

 

at least in the US. . . algorithms are not patentable.

 

I can't patent a new sort routine or a new compression algorithm.

 

But I can the patent the use an algorithm in a particular process as a means to a proprietary end. . .

 

Yes, I understood that from your very first post.

 

Note that I did not mention a single word regard US patents though, that means I was not referening to US patents in anyway but globally. I apologize if I was not explicit enough...

Edited July 22, 2005 by EFileTahi-A

[EFileTahi-A]

Nobody parents for sport, you're not understanding:

Someone invents something.

They patent it

Some people would market this idea, but it takes a lot of money to market something. So, they don't. The reason they hold the patent is so that later on, hopefully, someone who has money to invest will pay them for their invention and market it themselves. It's not like people are patenting things with the intention to sue other people.

 

Yes, nobody patents for sport I know that. That's why I wrote "sports" with "quotes". Think of it as an metafore or some other figurative expression.

 

Anyway, patenting for "sport" it's ok, and also makes sense to me AS LONG it does not apply to software (the thing from which this thread is all about)...

[Joe Mamma]

I wager you don't have children to feed.

[EFileTahi-A]

I wager you don't have children to feed.

 

come again?!

[Machaira]

My take - patents exist to protect the person patenting, but the system is often taken advantage of.

[Joe Mamma]

come again?!

Do you have children? I am assuming you don't. Because you aren't really concerned with getting paid for your intellectual property and creative exertions.

 

The reason I went to a university and studied engineering was so that I could enjoy a comfortable life, and provide one for my children. This education gave me the skills needed to perform a job that is personally rewarding, emotionally, as well as fiscally, and perhaps may add to the quality of life for others.

 

That education cost me money - I consider it an investment. . .

 

If I come up with an innovation why should I be able to profit from my investment by protecting my rights? Anyone who takes the position that it isnt fair

 

What gets me riled is naïve ideology - This position that protecting software rights is an unfair practice is not unlike the position, in this country, of many white lower-middle class males who blame immigration for society's problems.

[Shurikn]

What gets me riled is naïve ideology - This position that protecting software rights is an unfair practice is not unlike the position' date=' in this country, of many white lower-middle class males who blame immigration for society's problems.[/quote']

 

Wow... How can you see any link between these 2 situations....

 

I blame money for everything :P

 

now... being more serious. Even the fact that "I can the patent the use an algorithm in a particular process as a means to a proprietary end" does not make sense to me... I'll go again and talk about sorting.there are like what... 10 good sorting algo? imagine if the 10 are patented because they use the algorithm in the process of sorting a list for the end of having a previously unsorted list listed? Now everyone that want to do anything that need sorting then needs to buy the right of that sorting method, therefore nobody is taking the risk of doing any sorting in his/her app because he cant afford to pay anything to the patent holder, execpt maybe big compagnies.

 

That may not be the best exemple... but there are patents out there that triggers multiple sueing. I dont have references right now, but i dont think they sould be that hard to find... just think about how many time sun and microsoft sued each others... and it's only the begining, people are starting to paten more and more thing... like that Amazon patent about the way they keep information on the current command in cookies...

 

Heres a good explanation of what softweare patent are

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent

Edited July 22, 2005 by Shurikn

[Joe Mamma]

Wow... How can you see any link between these 2 situations...

I admit that my rant was full of typo's and the connection might be vague, but it is related to wanting to protect one's right to do something and not have to improve themselves at the expense of denying others the opportunity to improve their own situtation.

I'll go again and talk about sorting.there are like what... 10 good sorting algo? imagine if the 10 are patented because they use the algorithm in the process of sorting a list for the end of having a previously unsorted list listed?

Ah, but that is not enough in and of itself (US patent law here.) The 'end' has to be something that is affected by the sorted list. And in US patent law, there is the condition of 'nonobviousness.'

 

Consider mousetraps. . . Lets say I figure out that applying a sort algorithm in the manufacturing process increases a mousetraps efficiency, I can patent the application of the sort algorithm ONLY in that part of the manufacturing process in which it is used. Furthermore, the burden is on me to show that said application of the algorithm is nonobvious.

[EFileTahi-A]

Do you have children? I am assuming you don't.

Yes I have, 11 year old kid...

 

Because you aren't really concerned with getting paid for your intellectual property and creative exertions.

You should have assumed here too: "Because I assume you aren't really concerned (...)". That way you would still have a chance to fallback in case you were wrong (and you are wrong) like it happened with the: "If I do have children" thingie...

 

We use our "intellectual property" basically in everything, including in our jobs. Thus, working without being paid (working for free with a house to pay) concern people, even myself (yes, even me). This contradicts your point of view about my person (which you barely know) about my concern of being payed. You're distorcing my opinion on the patents subject.

 

Apart from this, If I want to get paid for the result of my creative exertions, I will. If I think there is no need for that I will not get paid for it. I cannot make it simplier to explain to you. All I can say you is (I and don't want to hammer, but): just don't assume things from a global view based on a single ideia...

 

The reason I went to a university and studied engineering was so that I could enjoy a comfortable life, and provide one for my children. This education gave me the skills needed to perform a job that is personally rewarding, emotionally, as well as fiscally, and perhaps may add to the quality of life for others.

Well, thanks for sharing this with me. And, as token of my appreciation I will also share with you the following:

 

I never been in the army.

 

That education cost me money - I consider it an investment. . .

ok.

 

If I come up with an innovation why should I be able to profit from my investment by protecting my rights? Anyone who takes the position that it isnt fair

 

Got confused with your last phrase on this one...

 

Anyway, this is getting truly off topic. I wonder why "my kid was called" here to a "software patent" subject...

Edited July 25, 2005 by EFileTahi-A

[mskeel]

Software patenting is a good idea in theory, but then you get classic cases like Microsoft and their patenting of the Is Not operator. Last I checked 'is not' is just a specialized version of != which Microsoft surely didn't invent and which has been in use since at least C.

 

And then there is always Amazon's One Click Shopping Patent. I know Amazon didn't invent that, yet they hold the patent on it...

 

And the really tricky part is that you can hold patents in Europe that aren't applicable in the US and vice versa. There are also world patents, but who is going to enforce that? There are two areas of concern among inventors/developers: First, money and ensuring that you get paid for what you invent and are paid what you are due for your creative thoughts and energy you put into the creation and development. Second, protection and ensuring that once you have created something that you don't get screwed by somebody else patenting it and telling you that you can't make what you invented.

 

I personally am against most software patents just becuase I don't really feel that software is something that is patentable. Is "is not" something new? not really. But now I can never use it without paying royalties to microsoft. How do you protect yourself without patenting something? Start by copyrighting, then publish. If you can prove that you invented something and show when you invented it, you have one year from the time that it goes public to file for patent. After that time it is no longer patentable by you or anyone but you are still the inventor.

 

The really crazy part is that its not like the patent office or patent lawyers really know the difference between a good patent and a bad patent when it comes to software -- it's not like we're talking about a Mr. Popeil product here.

[DiverDan]

I personnally hold 2 USA patents, one does include software and PLC code that are specific to the process. The patents cost me about $12,000 each. The processes, supporting equipment and software took 12 years to develop at a personal cost of 2.5 million DiverDan dollars. Why in the world would I ever want these very expensive properities to be free to all...I my opinion, if you remove patents, copyrights(the place where software usually belongs) and trademarks, you will remove the driving force that creates them. All things free to all is the SAME principle the lead to the demise of Communist Russia. (do your homework on this subject if you feel differently as I have delt with the Russian Economic Development Department and they agree). Only a "profit for contributation" format leads to advancement in any and all fields(inclusive of sports).

 

And ONLY the US supports US patents. You must separately apply to individual countries for international protection...The cost of this is roughly 2 to 4 times the cost of your US patent depending on which and how many countries you wish to include in your protection umberlla.

Edited July 25, 2005 by DiverDan

[mskeel]

There are two problems with software patents for the common man. First, a patent is ussually an innapropriate protection method for software in almost all cases. But that comes down to your perspective. I tend to think of Software Engineering more as an art than an engineering discipline, and so code is more like literature than schematics. Further, most, if not all, algorithms are derived from mathematics which is the root of nature -- algorithms are more discovered than they are created. You can't get a patent on a specific species of beetle but if you discover it you can get it named after yourself... As far as software is concerned, copyrights and liscenses are ussually good enough for most folks.

 

The second big problem I have is that the common man will never actually be able to defend his patent. You just spent $12,000 on the patent fee alone, not include lawyers fees, R&D, etc that lead to the concept or polished the concept. If your patent is ever challenged you would be looking at being tied up in courts for years at great costs. You will lose to anyone with more money than you -- plain and simple. What has your patent bought you in the end? A big fat bankruptcy.

 

And the meanwhile, your safely patented product that you hold exclusive rights to in the US is being reproduced extensively in China and manufactured exclusively by a fellow patent holder in Europe. Plus, all anyone in the US would have to do to get around your patent is tweak it enough that it is no longer in the scope of the original patent -- piggy backing your idea and leap frogging your innovation and patent.

 

DiverDan -- From what you described it sounds like it was definately the appropriate action to patent, as you were patenting a process and not just a peice of software. Incentives are extremely important and whithout the insentive of having rights over what you create why should you bother making it in the first place? I agree with you.

 

The problem with software patenting in general is defining "good patents" and "bad patents". What makes a good software patent? I don't think anything does -- you are either patenting a process or a manufactured good, not a peice of software.

 

For anyone interested, patenting DNA and Genetic/Biological matter is an interesting side debate running parrallel to the software patents debate.

[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 :D).

[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' date=' I think it's more that the whole patenting concept is directed at traditional engineering disciplines...[/quote']

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)' date=' not a patent.[/quote']

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.