
IBM Patents Optimization... Sigh. - jolie
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=vYLJAAAAEBAJ&dq=refactoring+software
======
tom_b
IBM is so funny. There are large incentives to get patents there as an
employee. Prior to when I left and went to another company, there were even
expectations that senior level engineers would regularly generate patents and
patentable work as part of their normal work.

I remember one funny year when they pushed the patent expectation down to the
lower banded employees (of which I was one at the time). We all dutifully
submitted (internally) a number of patent "inventions" to meet the requirement
and get the magic bonus $$ if you actually got one awarded. At the time, it
didn't feel like an honest effort to generate innovation, but rather just
another out-of-normal-process to heap on employees who were mostly trying not
to get laid off.

------
roc
I'm usually skeptical about complaints of seemingly over-broad patents. Most
people don't realize that the abstract isn't the patent, the claims are. And
the claims tend not to be overly broad because the examiners aren't _that_
bad.

But in this case, it _really is_ as bad as the title declares. Claim 1 covers
the process of any attempt at optimization.

The only things close to redeeming specificity are in the description and
background. The first claim still covers _everything_.

One small caveat: IBM is _attempting to_ patent optimization. They filed an
application and that application has been published.

But, as of yet, it hasn't been granted. Fingers-crossed, let's hope this
doesn't go through.

~~~
grogers
Claims typically start out broad, and then refine further to get at the core
of what exactly it is they are patenting. Since many patents are extensions or
improvements on existing things this seems to be a common theme in the patents
I've skimmed over. This patent application just keeps everything vague and
broad, which I suspect is common in many software patents.

~~~
roc
That's incorrect. An invention is infringing an issued patent if it includes
all the elements of any independent claim.

Dependent claims, in this case 2 - 5 (the ones that refer to another claim),
add specificity, but do not narrow the scope of the original independent
claim. They exist as a legal tactic; helping to ensure that a more specific
variant of the invention is covered, in the event that the parent claim is
later invalidated (ruled too broad, revoked upon discovery of prior art,
struck after re-examination, etc).

~~~
sp332
But in case of a legal dispute, it may be that only certain contested claims
are ruled illegitimate. So it makes sense to have many claims ranging from
less to more specific, instead of having a few specific claims, so that maybe
a somewhat wider claim will make it through a legal dispute.

~~~
roc
There's absolutely a lot of legal strategy in developing claims. There are
very good reasons that top firms hire specialized IP lawyers. All that is,
however, an aside.

The original point stands: If this patent issues, any competing invention that
merely contains all the elements of that broad independent claim, would be
infringing.

Those more-specific dependent claims are only a concern if you plan on
prevailing in court against the broad one. As setting foot in a courtroom is a
net loss for most innovators, the very existence of those dependent claims is
essentially irrelevant.

------
tkeller
"Sigh" is right. This isn't a patent. It's an application that hasn't been
examined yet. Come on people, try to learn a little bit about the subject
before trolling.

~~~
GrandMasterBirt
Hope they get it. And they can defend it. In fact I am hoping for a patent on
computing (damn can't do that). We need to prove by extreme example that the
patent system is broken.

------
derwiki
If their war chest of patents is to discourage me from writing competitive
software, then they win. Since I don't want to write enterprise software, I
think I win.

