tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post4243851104214735204..comments2024-02-10T02:23:08.475-08:00Comments on Paul's Pontifications: Patent 5,893,120 reduced to mathematical formulaePaul Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07353083601285449293noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-54668571354104217352013-05-26T10:33:37.192-07:002013-05-26T10:33:37.192-07:00Win a lottery<a href="http://www.draw25.info/" rel="nofollow">Win a lottery</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04044738540482103028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-88744103328776954712013-03-17T03:02:48.172-07:002013-03-17T03:02:48.172-07:00Thanks for sharing the great information. I really...Thanks for sharing the great information. I really appreciate it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.dentalgeneid.com/" rel="nofollow">are cavities genetic</a><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14362242674716630537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-411166221529927262013-02-18T22:12:50.648-08:002013-02-18T22:12:50.648-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03493083152641931097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-75626706481236722912012-12-08T23:51:48.208-08:002012-12-08T23:51:48.208-08:00You made some decent points there. I looked on the...You made some decent points there. I looked on the internet for the issue and found most individuals will go along with your website.Laser Patent Agenthttp://www.integrityip.com/PatentNews/LaserPatentNews.aspxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-36986775061924346562011-11-18T03:27:12.334-08:002011-11-18T03:27:12.334-08:00In regard to this discussion, I have a couple of q...In regard to this discussion, I have a couple of questions: whether a novel and useful algorithm implemented in software of a microcontroller (which controls a physical machine) is patentable? Almost every such apparatus is a finite automata that can be designed either in a form of a set of hardware devices (like flip-flops, registers, etc.) or as a corresponding microcontroller's program. Thus, whether such new algorithm is patentable? <br />MichaelKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-43132819400640256862011-06-27T09:47:33.953-07:002011-06-27T09:47:33.953-07:00Hey nerds, get it through your head:
The law is n...Hey nerds, get it through your head:<br /><br />The law is not executable, the law is interpreted by a human being.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-15086371643938975892011-05-11T23:04:41.335-07:002011-05-11T23:04:41.335-07:00interesting post. i pulled the filing on this cas...interesting post. i pulled the filing on this case. google is represented by Quinn Emanuel and Potter Minton. Here are some attorneys listed on the docket; google them for contact info. Do send along the post, I'm sure they'd appreciate it. <br /><br /><br />Cheryl A Berry<br />Andrew J Bramhall<br />Todd Michael Briggs<br />Evette D Pennypacker<br />Antonio Sistos<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Michael E Jones (of Potter Minton PC)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-21712020090885117412011-05-04T06:41:36.562-07:002011-05-04T06:41:36.562-07:00@Elijah Gregory
"Please correct me if I'...@Elijah Gregory<br /><br />"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the patent system is to help out smaller players in protecting their inventions. Patents help distribute wealth among more people, right?<br /><br />So now we have a situation where patents and the Patent Office seem to be working to keep wealth concentrated among fewer people.<br /><br />So is the system of patenting broken, or is it the execution of the mandates of the Patent Office that is screwed up?"<br /><br />Not exactly, but sort of. The patent system in the US is meant to protect inventors, period. Early in the history of the USPTO, most inventors were individuals, and patent law helped them to protect their inventions from theft by predatory manufacturers.<br /><br />If I come up with a novel method for heating water using electricity passed through a ceramic-coated piece of conductive wire, when wood stoves are the norm, and start building electric burners, I want to be able to either produce them myself, or get market price for my invention.<br /><br />Patents don't distribute wealth, they enable newcomers in technology to enter the market with an idea and give them a limited amount of time to create products using it without fear of direct competition.<br /><br />The patent system is a startup-enabler, if you will, or it was, at least. Today, established companies register more patents than individuals.<br /><br />With actual inventions, the patent system still works fairly well. It is easy to find prior art, the operation of a machine or process can be understood, etc.<br /><br />With software patents, we have a problem of comprehension (as evidenced by the discussion on this thread). I will admit that 10 years ago, I didn't understand why software should not be patentable, myself. The immediate tendency of people (myself included) seems to be to think of software as either a physical thing or to believe that it has a physical effect when used...neither of those thoughts is correct.<br /><br />As a side effect of preventing innovation by software developers who do not have patents of their own to leverage, yes, software patents do tend to keep wealth concentrated in the hands of players with big patent portfolios.<br /><br />Interestingly, many of the developers today who are working on software that is in danger due to lawsuits are working on software for which the code is open-source. So, even when there is no direct profit motive on the part of the software developer, there is a barrier to innovation being raised.<br /><br />In short, the problem is worse than you think, and it's about control as much as it is about moneyadrianstovallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11183880865370255181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-5429716830414668782011-05-04T06:24:37.106-07:002011-05-04T06:24:37.106-07:00"I can provide the mathematical formula for a..."I can provide the mathematical formula for a chair using boolean logic and the equation for an infinite plane. That does not make the invention non-patentable. Valid patents, generally speaking, are novel and non-obvious applications of the laws of nature and/or mathematics."<br /><br />While I am somewhat skeptical that you can provide the mathematical formula for a chair in boolean logic, I'll stipulate that you can, for the purposes of furthering this discussion.<br /><br />If you can do that, *and* the design of said chair is novel and non-obvious, *and* your formula describes a physical object, or a process to create a physical object, then yes, it is patentable.<br /><br />You should not be able to patent software for the same reason that you cannot patent a formula for an infinite plane...both of the patent descriptions are completely abstract (i.e. there is no tangible result).<br /><br />To inject the missing piece to your closing sentence, I would say "Valid patents, generally speaking, are novel and non-obvious applications of the laws of nature and/or mathematics embodied in a machine or process that produces a tangible result."<br /><br />Generally, this is wrapped up in the machine-or-transformation test which is a rethinking of the earlier "concrete, useful, and tangible" test.<br /><br />Software *never* produces a tangible result, is not a machine, and is not capable of transforming anything. Software is instructions, formulas, algorithms...math written by human artists known as programmers.adrianstovallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11183880865370255181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-80410276303737704802011-05-04T04:47:23.609-07:002011-05-04T04:47:23.609-07:00Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the patent...Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the patent system is to help out smaller players in protecting their inventions. Patents help distribute wealth among more people, right?<br /><br />So now we have a situation where patents and the Patent Office seem to be working to keep wealth concentrated among fewer people.<br /><br />So is the system of patenting broken, or is it the execution of the mandates of the Patent Office that is screwed up?Elijah Gregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17358167762554840378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-6233278217577138692011-05-03T23:50:52.747-07:002011-05-03T23:50:52.747-07:00I can provide the mathematical formula for a chair...I can provide the mathematical formula for a chair using boolean logic and the equation for an infinite plane. That does not make the invention non-patentable. Valid patents, generally speaking, are novel and non-obvious applications of the laws of nature and/or mathematics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-86436216579365395762011-05-03T11:07:55.930-07:002011-05-03T11:07:55.930-07:00"..Ok... this makes more sense than saying pr..."..Ok... this makes more sense than saying programs shouldn't be patentable b/c they are just math. At least we are in agreement that a program is a creative work (i.e., not just math). I can agree that patents aren't perfectly suited to protecting programs... for example... a 20 year term is way too long for protecting a computer program because the innovation is so fast."<br /><br />Just to be clear, I agree that software is a creative work, which means that it should be protected by copyright, yes. I also most definitely also *do* mean that software is fundamentally mathematics, which is why it should not *also* be afforded patent protection.<br /><br />You mentioned the spreadsheet as an example of software that should have received patent protection, and that's a perfect example to use as an explanation of why software patents are not just inappropriate, but harmful.<br /><br /><br />For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadsheet<br /><br />VisiCalc (the first commonly-used commercial spreadsheet program) is probably what you're thinking of when you say "spreadsheet".<br /><br />It was published in 1979, and, had patent protection been an accepted protection for software at that time, there would have been no competing spreadsheet software until 1999 (assuming the US Railway Association, Capex Corp and Rene K. Pardo and Remy Landau had not already sued them into submission with their own patents).<br /><br />The first 9 versions of Microsoft Excel were released in that timeframe, as was every version of Lotus 1-2-3. Every version of Quattro Pro (when it was still a Borland product) was published in that timeframe.<br /><br />The difference that competition and alternative implementations make in software products is enormous.<br /><br />If VisiCalc or its predecessors had obtained an enforceable patent on the idea of an automatically calculating spreadsheet program, every software developer trying to do calculations on arrays would have been effectively hamstrung. That would have severely limited advancements in software application development.adrianstovallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11183880865370255181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-1950975436324646392011-05-03T10:11:07.893-07:002011-05-03T10:11:07.893-07:00Whenever I think about whether software should be ...Whenever I think about whether software should be patentable, I always think of the spreadsheet program. Whoever invented that program back in the day deserved a patent because it truly is an amazing tool. The fact that the function is provided by a computer is irrelevant. Brilliant inventions deserve patent protection. As far as calculating inventions go, it makes no sense to say that an abacus could qualify as patentable subject matter because it is tangible but a spreadsheet program would not.<br /><br />@Adrian<br />"My argument is not that software should not be protected, but that patents are an inappropriate tool to cover a creative work, which is what software is." Ok... this makes more sense than saying programs shouldn't be patentable b/c they are just math. At least we are in agreement that a program is a creative work (i.e., not just math). I can agree that patents aren't perfectly suited to protecting programs... for example... a 20 year term is way too long for protecting a computer program because the innovation is so fast.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-83202556778180830222011-05-03T08:43:46.204-07:002011-05-03T08:43:46.204-07:00Sorry for the deletion...had to fix a broken link....Sorry for the deletion...had to fix a broken link...<br /><br />"...Algorithms are generally applications of mathematics, not theorems, and therefore are patentable subject matter. You can patent a sorting algorithm but you can't patent the concept of sorting (for which there are infinite algorithms)..."<br /><br />Where did you hear that?<br /><br />In Gottschalk v. Benson, the court "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_matter#The_algorithm_exception_and_the_patent-eligibility_trilogy" rel="nofollow">...emphasized that its decision did not preclude computer software from being patented, but rather precluded the patentability of software where the only useful characteristic was an algorithm...</a>".<br /><br />Which just means that the court understood software poorly enough that it did not realize that its note about the decision not precluding patentability was incorrect.adrianstovallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11183880865370255181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-27774205271572096092011-05-03T08:41:17.582-07:002011-05-03T08:41:17.582-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.adrianstovallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11183880865370255181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-64699094799620916072011-05-03T08:11:34.806-07:002011-05-03T08:11:34.806-07:00"...A patent is what allows an inventor to ge..."...A patent is what allows an inventor to get funding from investors for a start-up company. If patents didn't exist, it would be much harder for the little guys to compete with the big companies..."<br /><br />A patent is one thing that makes investors feel more secure investing in a start-up company, yes. I do not argue that patents should not exist, I argue that patents are not an appropriate tool for protecting software.<br /><br />In the world of software, patents are a terrible *hindrance* to the furthering of the arts, just as they would be in other more "formal" mathematics.<br /><br />Continuing to allow software development to be understood as "invention", rather than publishing forces us into a position where, at some point, no software, regardless of how trivial, will be able to be developed without a legitimate fear of infringing on a patent.<br /><br />With copyright (which already protects all software that is published) in place, your work is protected from copying as well as books have been for centuries.adrianstovallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11183880865370255181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-62730545367009854112011-05-03T07:57:42.089-07:002011-05-03T07:57:42.089-07:00"...The analogy extends to copyrights as well..."...The analogy extends to copyrights as well. A book can be reduced to a collection of words..."<br /><br />Two things to note there. First, copyright is a very different protection. Copyright protects expression (creative work).<br /><br />Second, while that collection of words can be copyrighted, a single word cannot.<br /><br />"...If you say that patentability is determined based on what something is comprised of, then nothing would be patentable or copyrightable..."<br /><br />I don't say that, specifically. Interestingly, patent law *does* in fact, say that, as does copyright law. They have to say that because if they did not, there would be no context for understanding whether a work could be protected by copyright or if an invention could be protected by patent law.<br /><br />"...Intellectual property allows authors and inventors to patent or copyright the novel/original arrangements of algorithms, of atoms, and of words..."<br /><br />That's absolutely correct. My argument is not that software should not be protected, but that patents are an inappropriate tool to cover a creative work, which is what software is. There is an element of engineering involved in the creation of software, but only insofar as a given piece of software is meant to manipulate data in a specific way.<br /><br />People tend to associate software with computers and other hardware inventions, which is fine, but they must also understand that hardware and software are completely different things.<br /><br />Software is useful, yes, and it helps us direct computers to do useful things, yes, but (and this is where the patentability argument comes in) patent law is meant to cover inventions, processes, and machines.<br /><br />My earlier note about recipes was a good jumping-off point for an explanation of what is different about recipes and software, and there's a note about drugs and chemicals here, as well. If a recipe is a simple list of ingredients, with no instructions on how to combine them, then it is not, in fact, patentable.<br /><br />In the same way, what is protected about drugs and chemicals is not the list of ingredients in the compound (though they may be protected as trade secrets), but the process of beginning with those physical ingredients, combining them in a specific process, and ending up with a compound that performs a useful function in the real world.<br /><br />Software *never* does that last step of causing an effect in the real world. There is always hardware required to manifest some physical effect.<br /><br />Countless hours of R & D may go into creating software or a user interface, but, again, that's a creative work, not an invention. I'm a programmer. I write software for a living. I understand how important intellectual property is and that software has value.<br /><br />I also understand how software works, and what it is incapable of. There's no piece of software, no matter how cleverly written, that does more than turning numbers into other numbers.adrianstovallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11183880865370255181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-377375695806655232011-05-03T06:18:31.247-07:002011-05-03T06:18:31.247-07:00"I cannot touch software in the same way that..."I cannot touch software in the same way that I cannot touch a recipe, prose, or the family of patterns known as "plaid". I can identify all of those things, and they are meaningful, but they are not tangible...they have no effect in the physical world, and are not patentable.<br /><br />I *can* touch a general purpose computer in the same way that I can touch a meat grinder, a printing press, or a loom. Those things *do* have an effect in the physical world and (prior art aside) may be patentable."<br /><br />Whether you can touch something doesn't seem like a great way to determine whether something should be protected by intellectual property. If you spent a lot of time and effort creating something (regardless of its tangibility), you not would want others to just come in and copy you and freeload off all your effort. Think about R&D for drugs. Why would those companies spend billions of dollars to make drugs that could be later copied easily by generics if patents did not exist? If you wrote a book, would you want Random House and all those other publishers to swoop in and reprint your book and make a ton of money from it without compensating you? Same goes for photographers. Clearly, there are tons of examples of "abstract" things that people are willing to pay money for. Intellectual property allows artists, inventors, authors, etc. to be compensated for the value they add to society. A patent is what allows an inventor to get funding from investors for a start-up company. If patents didn't exist, it would be much harder for the little guys to compete with the big companies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-58375365309475767292011-05-03T05:57:04.906-07:002011-05-03T05:57:04.906-07:00"Didn't see anyone talk about that yet, b..."Didn't see anyone talk about that yet, but if the day comes when we have replicators, then manufacturing will become a software-based process, and that statement would be true. At present, that statement is not true, because no general-purpose machine for controlled manipulation of subatomic particles into human-scale objects exists."<br /><br />I'm sorry. I think you missed the point of my analogy. Your post reduced the method in Google's patent to just math. I get that. My point is that any mechanical invention can be reduced to just atoms, too. But, nobody goes around and says that mechanical devices shouldn't be patentable because that would be the same as trying to patent an atom. The analogy extends to copyrights as well. A book can be reduced to a collection of words. If you say that patentability is determined based on what something is comprised of, then nothing would be patentable or copyrightable. Intellectual property allows authors and inventors to patent or copyright the novel/original arrangements of algorithms, of atoms, and of words. I'm an electrical engineer. I understand computers from both a hardware and software perspective. So, it isn't that I don't understand that algorithms include math. It is just that I think inventors can add value by the methods they create that include math that they put together to accomplish new and useful results.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-27813388231377800852011-05-03T05:24:49.709-07:002011-05-03T05:24:49.709-07:00A recipe is essentially a sequence of instructions...A recipe is essentially a sequence of instructions. Read the quoted example of the Aspirin dosage. Yes, a doctor simply telling a patient to "take two and call me in the morning" is a patentable method. The patient does not even have to be performing those instructions for it to be patentable.<br /><br />So now how does that extend to software? You do the math (pun intended ;-)).RAM-loving Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-5349188420058277542011-05-03T01:15:16.270-07:002011-05-03T01:15:16.270-07:00"Hence, as Kim said, recipes are patentable (..."Hence, as Kim said, recipes are patentable (depending on what the recipe is for)."<br /><br />The difference is that practicing a recipe actually manipulates and transforms material substances, software ONLY manipulates numbers. Whereas a recipe might include a step such as "boil sweetened solution for two minutes", 'software' merely states things such as "move 7 to 11". <br /><br />And even a step such as "move 7 to 11" is presuming too much; the concept of "move" is itself just a number that when encountered in a context results in a fixed sequence of additions and multiplications -- all of which is "math".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-47382910450107355592011-05-03T00:16:58.356-07:002011-05-03T00:16:58.356-07:00Nice work. ;)Nice work. ;)akoskmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17934693804929478861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-12911371897222173822011-05-02T21:21:42.344-07:002011-05-02T21:21:42.344-07:00I'm sorry, but anyone who argues that this alg...I'm sorry, but anyone who argues that this algorithm is more than just abstract math is an idiot. It's just a very long piece of abstract math. It doesn't matter if you can apply the math to a real-world system. You can do the same with bit shifts, which are abstract math, and can be easily done in registers on a CPU. Patents themselves are flawed ideas anyways - you can't claim to own the rights to an idea or concept anyways. It's not a property, it's easily reproduced infinitely and modified in the blink of an eye by the vast parallel human intellect. For the same reason you can't claim intellectual property on music. It's just tripe and this is a just a very solid proof of one kind of illegitimacy in copyright/patent/etc. law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-47392641867775802502011-05-02T18:11:11.955-07:002011-05-02T18:11:11.955-07:00@neroden and everybody hammering on the "soft...@neroden and everybody hammering on the "software is abstract mathematics" argument: you seem to be under the misconception that only physical objects are patentable. Please look into "method" patents (which is what most software patents are): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_(patent)<br /><br />Relevant quote: "Thus, one might speak of a process for making soap or candles, or speak of a method for curing headaches comprising administering a therapeutically effective dosage of aspirin."<br /><br />Note that they don't claim the actual product or things, but a <i>way</i> to produce or use them. Yes, even if they are performed by a human.<br /><br />Hence, as Kim said, recipes are patentable (depending on what the recipe is for).RAM-loving Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5975524006824862804.post-80925617335453371112011-05-02T17:39:00.641-07:002011-05-02T17:39:00.641-07:00To reiisi blog guy going on about factors unrelate...To reiisi blog guy going on about factors unrelated to the invention being claimed.<br /><br />Patents need to only describe the invention being claimed.<br /><br />Get it?<br /><br />Whether there are a lot of other factors or not, as long as they are orthogonal to the invention, they need not be mentioned in the patent.<br /><br />Get it?<br /><br />Should I point out that if you invent a novel transmission for cars, you don't need to describe the rest of the car, because the rest of the car is "well known in the art", and describing everything would tend to create, ahem, lots of redundant material that an examiner would have to unnecessarilly wade through.<br /><br />Get it yet?<br /><br />Should I point out that, near as I can tell, the method described in this patent can apply to any hashtable using chaining regardless of the hash function being used or the data being hashed. Or are you claiming that expiring records in RAM should <i>never</i> be cleaned up? Should I further point out that a patent only needs to describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail for a person of ordinary skill (a code monkey, in this case) to implement it, and as related comments around the web show, even someone in the first semester of code monkey school can read this patent and implement it?<br /><br />Do you get it yet?<br /><br />(I may have misunderstood this last part in the parentheses... but there's a lot of other material that will teach real engineers how to build real machines in the real world, and those are not the contribution made by this patent, and hence it does not need to describe them at all. As long as the method described by this patent can be applied to "ideal" machines or "real" machines by a code monkey, the rest of the details are irrelevant and, hence, abstracted away.)RAM-loving Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com