Good thing all source code is just very convenient mathematical notation describing an algorithm... This to me is the most fundamental reason software patents are insane.
The Federal Circuit en banc decision on CLS Bank v. Alice is coming out soon. This case will likely give guidance on a 101 patent subject matter test for software patents (which the Supreme Court would then overrule). The certified questions are:
a. What test should the court adopt to determine whether a computer-implemented invention is a patent ineligible "abstract idea"; and when, if ever, does the presence of a computer in a claim lend patent eligibility to an otherwise patent-ineligible idea?
b. In assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of a computer-implemented invention, should it matter whether the invention is claimed as a method, system, or storage medium; and should such claims at times be considered equivalent for § 101 purposes?
Good thing algorithms aren't patented and instead it's the application of the algorithm that gets the grant. Most are written as "a method for performing X by doing Y."
IMO, the issue with software patents isn't that businesses patent algorithms or code(which they don't do). Instead, it's that technology moves too fast for the monopoly time that's granted. When it comes to software, what's innovative 5 years ago is common place and often a commodity today.
In Europe this is solved by not allowing patenting of mathematics or raw algorithms but allowing patents that cover the technical application of such things.
In certain fields the "technical effect" required [it's not called that any more, the test is more nuanced now] is, shall we say, less obvious than others. [Digital] Image processing/codecs/compression for example always seemed very close to just maths.
>Good thing all source code is just very convenient mathematical notation describing an algorithm
Only really true for pure functions (i.e. same input -> same output + side effects), I think. A lot of the code in actual practice is stuff like "update this bit of object state", "set this server variable so that it does this"; and it really doesn't generalize beyond a very specific platform.
Those may still technically count as algorithms, but not in the sense people normally think of them.
Although the ones they try to patent generally are of the "pure function" type, so it may be a distinction without a difference.
All algorithms are theorems. All theorems can be represented by unique numbers (Gödel numbers). In the abstract sense they exist at all, all numbers exist prior to their use. Therefore all algorithms are discoveries, not inventions.
Ok, this argument sounds clever at first but is actually trite, being excessively reductionist and ignoring that some intellectual creativity occurs in most discovery. Most obviously it motivates a better proper definition of the term "invention". Patentable inventions should always be applications of technology, not the technology itself.
The whole purpose of patents is to encourage more innovation that benefits economies as a whole, by granting a temporary monopoly to entities to benefit from the process and expense of invention. Standing to sue should be on that basis; transference of rights to another entity should not whitewash that socio-economic responsibility. Everyone with distate for the NPEs understands this.
Some very basic background from a famous patent case (Diamond v. Chakrabarty):
"Anything under the sun that is made by man [is patentable] . . . . [T]he laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable . . . a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are manifestations of nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none."
Math can't be patented and yet you can get a patent for code snippets? This sounds absurd since all code boils down to mathematical manipulation of binary numbers. I guess if you abstract something enough you can get away with patenting it? Can we patent methods of preparing food now? How about ways to put something together (think ikea)?
Why hasn't anyone patented something like the smartphone yet people can patent something as arbitrary as memory management techniques?
I would say I hate our patent system but I'm just too damn confused by it to form an opinion or explain why I hate it.
You can't patent atoms, but you can patent compounds made of those atoms, like a new plastic. Or, if those compounds are already open, you can patent products that combine those compounds into a new shape, like a new blender. You can't patent the human voice or melodies, but you can patent a song. You can't declare that because someone's. product uses raw materials that are patent-free, that their final product isn't really an invention. Every thing is built on some other platform, so that would remove patents entirely.
I personally think copyright law provides enough protection for software. I think patents would actually harm innovation in the software world.
Algorithms are inherently protected, anyway - they're not like clever mechanical solutions that can be reverse-engineered by anyone with eyes and a brain; they're usually close-sourced when the author wants them to be. Patents may be necessary to protect products with transparent functionality, but software usually doesn't fit that bill unless it's deliberately open-sourced.
Even if you developed a strong AI algorithm that will change the world, there should be competition. It's not like Microsoft will hire a few engineers to rapidly develop something that transcends yours; it would be a reverse engineering challenge to any competition.
What if algorithms behind network protocols were patented? Computers would still be novelties and corporate tools, I think.
So patents solve the incentive problem, just like copyright. Copyright solves the incentive problem when "writing masses of software" is the hard part. Patents solve the incentive problem when "figuring out what software to write" is the hard part. Take things like garbage collectors. Even the most complex are only 15,000-20,000 lines of code. Writing those lines of code was the easy part--it was figuring out what that code should do, and doing all the testing to figure out what worked and what didn't that was the hard part.
Well, this is how our system works. There is nothing stopping me from filing suit against you for posting this comment because it hurt my feelings. Then the judge throws it out because there's no basis in the law for my claim.
In a society chalk full of rent-takers, you would expect that when one of these rent-takers "imagines a promising new field", their first impulse is to see if they can move their figurative fences little further out to extract a "reward" for their "discovery".
Seems like uniloc is willing to file lawsuits without any considerations. see below for an interesting Q&A on uniloc's site:
Q. How many additional lawsuits does Uniloc plan to file?
A. Uniloc plans to defend our patents aggressively whenever they are infringed. This protects our business and our shareholder value. In our view, it’s the right thing to do.
Wait, so are Software patents acceptable but patents on mathematical algorithms not okay? Where is the rational in this? Granted, the patent in question is absurd to a new extreme (trying to patent floating point numbers).
Mathematics are reasoned to be "a law of nature," and "abstract ideas," and so they are explicitly excluded as unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Algorithms are established to be mathematics under Case Law, particularly Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197; and Flook, 437 U.S. at 585, 198 USPQ at 195.
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-178; establishes that if the patent is for a particular application of an abstract idea, but not for the abstract idea itself, it may be patentable.
I don’t quite get it either – though I am generally not opposed to software patents on complex software, nor for ‘maths patents’ on complex algorithms. It is just the trivial ones that get annoying over time…
On the other hand, most ‘engineering patents’ were probably also quite trivial during the first few years of the modern patent system – but you don’t necessarily have to repeat mistakes :)
> Wait, so are Software patents acceptable but patents on mathematical algorithms not okay? Where is the rational in this?
Compare to other fields. Patents on drugs are allowed, for example, but patents on the laws of chemistry are not. Patents on mechanical devices are allowed, but patents on physical laws are not.
>the patent in question is absurd to a new extreme //
Not really new nor an extreme. In the past someone claimed they had a patent on arabic numerals that covered use of them in representation of numbers ... the application was refused ...
This would overturn every video/audio/data compression patent. Every Encryption Patent. It would over turn every Google Search Ranking Patent. It would limit patents to physical things.
Under that system even many physical devices would not be patent-able. The math that goes in to Battery charging optimization. Silicon Chips would not be able to patent XOR, NOR, OR, Gate logic.
This judge doesn't have the authority to make such changes to patent law.
The true problem is obviousness. Any machine is reducible to an algorithm is reducible to an integer. They are all the same. It's ridiculous to say that algorithms are "discovered" and not "made by man".
There needs to be a better procedure for throwing out all the stupid obvious or trivial patents - but allow ones that have required the blood, sweat and tears of their inventor to create.
Does anyone know which patent is being asserted here? I thought Uniloc only had one patent, and it was related to try-and-buy DRM. But the description in the article says "processing of floating point numbers by the Linux operating system was a patent violation" which doesn't seem to fit. Is there another Uniloc patent?
[+] [-] voidlogic|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sthu11182|13 years ago|reply
a. What test should the court adopt to determine whether a computer-implemented invention is a patent ineligible "abstract idea"; and when, if ever, does the presence of a computer in a claim lend patent eligibility to an otherwise patent-ineligible idea?
b. In assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of a computer-implemented invention, should it matter whether the invention is claimed as a method, system, or storage medium; and should such claims at times be considered equivalent for § 101 purposes?
[+] [-] deelowe|13 years ago|reply
IMO, the issue with software patents isn't that businesses patent algorithms or code(which they don't do). Instead, it's that technology moves too fast for the monopoly time that's granted. When it comes to software, what's innovative 5 years ago is common place and often a commodity today.
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|13 years ago|reply
In certain fields the "technical effect" required [it's not called that any more, the test is more nuanced now] is, shall we say, less obvious than others. [Digital] Image processing/codecs/compression for example always seemed very close to just maths.
[+] [-] baddox|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SilasX|13 years ago|reply
Only really true for pure functions (i.e. same input -> same output + side effects), I think. A lot of the code in actual practice is stuff like "update this bit of object state", "set this server variable so that it does this"; and it really doesn't generalize beyond a very specific platform.
Those may still technically count as algorithms, but not in the sense people normally think of them.
Although the ones they try to patent generally are of the "pure function" type, so it may be a distinction without a difference.
[+] [-] tocomment|13 years ago|reply
Would that be possible? I think it would go so far in helping me understand formulas I read in papers.
[+] [-] woodchuck64|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inopinatus|13 years ago|reply
Ok, this argument sounds clever at first but is actually trite, being excessively reductionist and ignoring that some intellectual creativity occurs in most discovery. Most obviously it motivates a better proper definition of the term "invention". Patentable inventions should always be applications of technology, not the technology itself.
The whole purpose of patents is to encourage more innovation that benefits economies as a whole, by granting a temporary monopoly to entities to benefit from the process and expense of invention. Standing to sue should be on that basis; transference of rights to another entity should not whitewash that socio-economic responsibility. Everyone with distate for the NPEs understands this.
[+] [-] jwb119|13 years ago|reply
"Anything under the sun that is made by man [is patentable] . . . . [T]he laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable . . . a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are manifestations of nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none."
[+] [-] duaneb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skizm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Draco6slayer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexvr|13 years ago|reply
Algorithms are inherently protected, anyway - they're not like clever mechanical solutions that can be reverse-engineered by anyone with eyes and a brain; they're usually close-sourced when the author wants them to be. Patents may be necessary to protect products with transparent functionality, but software usually doesn't fit that bill unless it's deliberately open-sourced.
Even if you developed a strong AI algorithm that will change the world, there should be competition. It's not like Microsoft will hire a few engineers to rapidly develop something that transcends yours; it would be a reverse engineering challenge to any competition.
What if algorithms behind network protocols were patented? Computers would still be novelties and corporate tools, I think.
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] riazrizvi|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottschalk_v._Benson
[+] [-] rsbrown|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joe_the_user|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lgray|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greyfade|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codegeek|13 years ago|reply
Q. How many additional lawsuits does Uniloc plan to file?
A. Uniloc plans to defend our patents aggressively whenever they are infringed. This protects our business and our shareholder value. In our view, it’s the right thing to do.
[+] [-] jostmey|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greyfade|13 years ago|reply
Algorithms are established to be mathematics under Case Law, particularly Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197; and Flook, 437 U.S. at 585, 198 USPQ at 195.
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-178; establishes that if the patent is for a particular application of an abstract idea, but not for the abstract idea itself, it may be patentable.
[+] [-] claudius|13 years ago|reply
On the other hand, most ‘engineering patents’ were probably also quite trivial during the first few years of the modern patent system – but you don’t necessarily have to repeat mistakes :)
[+] [-] tzs|13 years ago|reply
Compare to other fields. Patents on drugs are allowed, for example, but patents on the laws of chemistry are not. Patents on mechanical devices are allowed, but patents on physical laws are not.
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|13 years ago|reply
Not really new nor an extreme. In the past someone claimed they had a patent on arabic numerals that covered use of them in representation of numbers ... the application was refused ...
[+] [-] auggierose|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbsmith|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] muglug|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] betterunix|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] drakaal|13 years ago|reply
Under that system even many physical devices would not be patent-able. The math that goes in to Battery charging optimization. Silicon Chips would not be able to patent XOR, NOR, OR, Gate logic.
This judge doesn't have the authority to make such changes to patent law.
[+] [-] marssaxman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pagekicker|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mckoss|13 years ago|reply
There needs to be a better procedure for throwing out all the stupid obvious or trivial patents - but allow ones that have required the blood, sweat and tears of their inventor to create.
[+] [-] lisper|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dangrossman|13 years ago|reply
> Method and apparatus for handling overflow and underflow in processing floating-point numbers
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...
[+] [-] rogueSkib|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime
[+] [-] api|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tlarkworthy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ateeqs|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] smrtinsert|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] betterunix|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdg|13 years ago|reply