

Patent Court Torn on Whether Software Deserve Patents - kjhughes
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-10/patent-court-torn-on-whether-software-deserve-patents.html

======
beagle3
To the people who are going to argue whether software patents (however they
may be described, e.g. "transformation by a machine") are good or bad, please
do NOT take "hardware patents" or "medical patents" or anything else like that
for granted -- patent abuse appears in many other areas, although software is
probably the worst offender by far.

Ridiculous patents that I've heard of that have been granted:

1\. Lifting a car onto a truck from the side using a forklift, rather than
from the front using a pulley.

2\. Method for training a cat with a laser pointer.

The 2nd one was granted, but is not enforceable, I think - whereas the first
is very lucrative for its owner.

------
bazillion
As I read more about software patents, and with what knowledge I've gained
working with software, I remain opposed to the idea of software patents in
general. My problem, though, is that I have no concept of what the arguments
are that support software patents.

Can anyone list any of the more compelling arguments supporting software
patents, or any blogs/articles that discuss why they're not bad?

~~~
throwaway89
My two cents:

First of all, what is a software patent? Software, per se, is not eligible for
patent protection under US patent law. But claiming a method which uses a
computer processor is legal. Whats the difference? transformation of a
machine... software == bad, software executing a on a processor ==good.

When you see some article that says Country X is not allowing software
patents...It is not allowing patents on purely software.

Case for "software" patents-

Why not? If 90 years ago, someone can invent a telecommunications system with
hardware, then why can't I do it today with software? If I come up with an
"idea" using Twillio's API and it is novel, uesful, and meets the 4 categories
of patents - I am entitled to a patent.

However, it should be obvious to everyone that if i'm using Twillio's API,
there should be prior art available to my idea. However, if there is not any
prior art, then I am entitled to my patent. In other words, my "idea" should
be easy to reject because there are obviously tons of prior art/teachings
available.

However, if these are granted as patent...Then this is a quality issue
argument and not whether software should be legal. Also, if we can get rid of
trolls out of the system, we'd me far better off.

~~~
cma
Should math ideas be patentable? Pay up to use a technique used in the proof
of the Poincare Conjecture? Make novel mathematics have mysterious 20 year
gaps between bursts of new discoveries?

One time I searched for an API that would let you send a unicast UDP message
to multiple receivers with just one system call. I just thought why not reduce
copying and lower the number of system calls? Nope, passing a N
addresses/ports instead of 1 address/port is a patented technique when used in
a networking system call. By reading this you've automatically doubled your
patent-breach liability.

Patents were meant to spread ideas, but even hearing or reading about one
doubles your penalty if a jury doesn't accept your clever work-around and
finds you liable.

------
bokglobule
Software is simply the expression of an idea. No different than art,
literature or any other creative medium. Never should have been an issue in
the first place. Yes, software can be complicated, even very complicated. A
painting by one of the great masters is also "complicated" but that doesn't
qualify it to be patented. Copyrights work fine for creative media and they'd
work just fine for software also.

~~~
jandrewrogers
Software is an implementation of an abstract process; implementations have a
copyright, processes can have a patent. It works this way for every patentable
subject matter, not just algorithm patents and similar.

If I design a new process for synthesizing a chemical, I can patent it. The
patent does not describe the implementation, only the abstract process. A
chemical engineer may design an implementation of that process, which is
protected by copyright. Similarly, an algorithm (which is a process) may be
patented but there may be several implementations of that algorithm that have
a copyright.

There is an unfortunate myth that an implementation of a patented process
being protected by copyright is unique to software. It most certainly isn't.
In the chemical process patent area it is quite common to license a patent
from one party and license a copyright for an implementation from another. In
fact, this is generally how all patents work.

~~~
fkdjs
Do you have an example of a good software patent?

Someone mentioned that having one syscall that sends multiple udp messages is
patented. That is ridiculous IMO. It meets the guideline you lay out: you can
define the abstract process of calling a method of an API then that itself
sends out UDP messages. However, it's blatantly obvious to all programmers.
But probably not to lawyers. Pretty much all software is blatantly obvious and
trivial to implement. Microsoft's patent on long filenames is another example.
Software is trivial to implement. Want long filenames? A high school student
can do it.

However, with chemistry, it is nontrivial. It is not a matter of writing code
that a CPU runs instantaneously. You have to devise a method on paper, try
it(sorry, a cpu won't mix chemicals), go back to the drawing board. Vs
software, where it's trivial so millions of people have probably already coded
what you thought was novel.

That happens often with software: I come up with an imaginative awesome new
algorithm, only to learn, it has been done before. that's because I work in a
line of work that is trivial. We're glorified code monkeys, and we don't
deserve to be awarded patents by any means.

------
sporkologist
The worst offender I could think of: U.S. Patent 4,197,590, the XOR Cursor
patent.

[http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/int-p...](http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/int-
prop/heckel-debunking.html#NinePats)

------
zeckalpha
Groklaw coverage: <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130510155818152>

