I think the problem with software patents is that they have no physical embodiment for laymen (Patent clerks) to be able to "see" and "Feel" and therefore make wise judgments on issuing patents. This leads to some vague patents, which when held by a small company/individual, will be easily invalidated by a large corporation in court, but when held by a large corporation, can be pretty much undefeatable.
For example:
There is a recent suit claims World of Warcraft and Call of Duty violate a software patent;
Not a patent that describes a novel rendering engine, or networking code, but a patent that (I'm Summarizing here) covers the idea of "representing players as 3-d avatars in a virtual space and allowing other players to see them" (This patent is held by a small company, and will probably be invalidated)
I think that software should be patentable, but, my common sense (as a small web-developer) says that these patents need to be significantly novel, AND specific, AND be tied to an IMPLIMENTATION.
I guy i know holds that patent to the idea of "displaying web site users who are looking a specific product, other products that were commonly purchased together by other consumers" He makes quite a bit of money from this.
This IS NOT a patent on the METHOD he uses to track the most popular products or the way he structured his Database or his specific implementation of code, But the “IDEA” of LISTING commonly purchased products.
As someone else here mentioned, when dealing with ethereal things as software, it’s hard to distinguish IDEAS from INVENTIONS, and too many IDEAS are being patented as INVENTIONS.
Woah woah woah, did you even read the wiki page? You're twisting their words! These people aren't asking for forever - that would be unconstitutional! They're much too reasonable for that - all that they want is "forever less one day".
yes, i agree. which leads me to believe that most people, here, who disagree with Posner do not / have not ever worked as the software application developer.
Just the opposite. Maybe a programmer who is just a hack might see it Posner's way, but those programmers who have been in the field for decades can attest to the high level of invention that has been involved in the work we are able to do today. LIke most consumers, with heads in the sand, too many seem to believe what we see and can do today was not the result of hard work of often many people. Much were given away, most supported by governments paying the salaries and supporting the mathematicians and scientists who did the work. If the inventions were basically paid for the taxpayers, then it makes some sense for the IP to be publicly available. Much other inventions were under the auspices of private companies (often under contract with the government).
But, make no mistake, just because it is software does not mean it should not protected. In every case, it would be possible to render software in hardware, and thus be subject to IP protection under the old concepts of what a protectable invention is. That fact that due to Alan Turing, John Von Neuman, Alonzo Church, and Kurt Goedel, we have general purpose computers that allow us to render machines in software, it should not mean that our soft machines should not be protected.
How is it possible that a 73 year old chap with obviously no clue of technological requirements can be in in a position to judge about cases like this! This is absolutely outrageous!
Just the opposite. Maybe a programmer who is just a hack might see it Posner's way, but those programmers who have been in the field for decades can attest to the high level of invention that has been involved in the work we are able to do today.
Us programmers are egotists. When we invent something cool, we want to share it with the world rather than keep it to ourselves. Just look at the open software movement if you don't believe me.
Can you imagine 100 years ago a baseball pitcher being granted a patent on a curve ball? Applying what you wrote, the ideal is "how do I make a pitch curve?" and the invention is "spinning the ball as I release it". I can say with full certainty that a curve ball could never have been patented (as we all know it never was). Anybody with a baseball, in theory, can spin a baseball pitch and maybe even make it curve. Likewise, anyone with a phone can slide their finger across the phone. That's why I don't believe it's an invention.
Under the US Constitution, a judge's job is to INTERPRET the law. A judge who says "I don't like the law" and then refuses to enforce it is an activist judge.
That's exactly why, what this senile, old fart has done is wrong.
I can't see his dismissal "with prejudice" surviving an appeal.
And what about Apple? They spent a pretty penny too on developing their phone and other devices. They built all sorts of expensive test chambers etc. And along comes other companies trying to release their own generic versions of Apple's innovation.
I think the biggest difference is reason that John Carmack made this quote:
“The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.”
It is possible to develop very similar software given a similar set of constraints. Should the first to market (or even first to idea phase with the largest pockets) be allowed to patent an idea that could be developed independently? When it comes to pharma, there is a large lead up time for the research required to create a new protein or medicine. Patenting the idea of having a medicine that cures headaches quicker would be in the same spirit as some of these software patents.
I love it. Good old AppleInsider members telling us how it should be.
I know what, how about becoming a great man/woman such as Posner so people actually take note of what you say instead of taking part of the eternal forum circle jerk?
Ah yes, telling others to become great instead of trolling on forums. I'm sure the irony of that is lost on you, no?
I think the biggest difference is reason that John Carmack made this quote:
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:georgia, serif;font-size:14px;line-height:18px;">“The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.”</span>
It is possible to develop very similar software given a similar set of constraints. Should the first to market (or even first to idea phase with the largest pockets) be allowed to patent an idea that could be developed independently? When it comes to pharma, there is a large lead up time for the research required to create a new protein or medicine. Patenting the idea of having a medicine that cures headaches quicker would be in the same spirit as some of these software patents.
Why is that any different than any other patent?
You don't even need to change the words (although it probably makes more sense if you replace 'program' with 'device'):
“The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.”
Like it or not, our Constitution allows for inventors to get exclusivity for their invention for some time period. That's the law of the land and no amount of whining will change it.
I love it. Good old AppleInsider members telling us how it should be.
I know what, how about becoming a great man/woman such as Posner so people actually take note of what you say instead of taking part of the eternal forum circle jerk?
+1
This man's been doing this for decades, and some fanboy taking 5 minutes away from playing a game or updating FB thinks they have a better understanding of patent law and jurisprudence... Ugh.
I love it. Good old AppleInsider members telling us how it should be.
I know what, how about becoming a great man/woman such as Posner so people actually take note of what you say instead of taking part of the eternal forum circle jerk?
There's no need to be blinded by expertise.
Posner is a "great man", obviously. He's educated and a leader in his field. So were the participants at the Wannsee Conference (distinguished lawyers, legal scholars, legislators.) But that's for a different thread.
I think the problem with software patents is that they have no physical embodiment for laymen (Patent clerks) to be able to "see" and "Feel" and therefore make wise judgments on issuing patents. This leads to some vague patents, which when held by a small company/individual, will be easily invalidated by a large corporation in court, but when held by a large corporation, can be pretty much undefeatable.
For example:
There is a recent suit claims World of Warcraft and Call of Duty violate a software patent;
Not a patent that describes a novel rendering engine, or networking code, but a patent that (I'm Summarizing here) covers the idea of "representing players as 3-d avatars in a virtual space and allowing other players to see them" (This patent is held by a small company, and will probably be invalidated)
I think that software should be patentable, but, my common sense (as a small web-developer) says that these patents need to be significantly novel, AND specific, AND be tied to an IMPLIMENTATION.
I guy i know holds that patent to the idea of "displaying web site users who are looking a specific product, other products that were commonly purchased together by other consumers" He makes quite a bit of money from this.
This IS NOT a patent on the METHOD he uses to track the most popular products or the way he structured his Database or his specific implementation of code, But the “IDEA” of LISTING commonly purchased products.
As someone else here mentioned, when dealing with ethereal things as software, it’s hard to distinguish IDEAS from INVENTIONS, and too many IDEAS are being patented as INVENTIONS.
Excellent summary - vague "business methods" patents and "ideas" are stifling innovation, not helping it. Patents are supposed to be novel inventions, not great (but nebulous) ideas.
"For software, the patent system has become so unwieldy as to be useless. Many have opined on this. It is currently almost impossible to write a new line of code that doesn't infringe on some software patent somewhere. I don't think that's what Jefferson intended.
Patents were written into the Constitution to promote the development of new ideas by providing a government-granted monopoly for a fixed period, after which the ideas would pass into the public domain. We as a country benefited from the advancement of knowledge, and inventors benefited from the fruit of their labors. Life was good." - http://lminfernaloptimist.blogspot.com/2010/02/it-biotech-and-patents-when-worlds.html
For those that think patents for software is a good thing doesn't have a clue about software development.
I chuckle at the arguement regarding hardware patents which are custom implementations of software algorithms to that of software algorithm designs which are the same and not considered innovative.
So, it's innovation if I use an IC with a DSP and EEPROM memory to perform actions that I can leverage with a GPGPU or CPU and the first example due to it being a custom chip is considered an invention but the unique use of the CPUs options and/or the GPGPU is not?
Most developers, including me, would agree with Posner. Software patents are evil, unnecessary and make our job of delivering innovative software harder.
The bean counters in our organisations might disagree though.
Stop. Please don't speak for most developers. I personally never authorized you to speak for me and I doubt the thousands of developers I've met and worked with would either.
You don't even need to change the words (although it probably makes more sense if you replace 'program' with 'device'):
“The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.”
Like it or not, our Constitution allows for inventors to get exclusivity for their invention for some time period. That's the law of the land and no amount of whining will change it.
But the Supreme Court has voiced concerns with extending patent protection to software, which they declined to do on two previous occasions, and continuing questions with more recent cases. Changes may eventually come despite business interest protests.
"For software, the patent system has become so unwieldy as to be useless. Many have opined on this. It is currently almost impossible to write a new line of code that doesn't infringe on some software patent somewhere. I don't think that's what Jefferson intended.
Patents were written into the Constitution to promote the development of new ideas by providing a government-granted monopoly for a fixed period, after which the ideas would pass into the public domain. We as a country benefited from the advancement of knowledge, and inventors benefited from the fruit of their labors. Life was good." - http://lminfernaloptimist.blogspot.com/2010/02/it-biotech-and-patents-when-worlds.html
For those that think patents for software is a good thing doesn't have a clue about software development.
Thanks for coming on and creating a profile solely to bitch about the fact your job of solving a problem in software now will require you to implement a new procedure to avoid patent infringement. Who in the hell would pay you $90K+ a year to just copy and paste other creators work? Perhaps the Linux Community who has seen $10 Billion+ infused by Corporations who are selling hardware paired with the OS?
Or perhaps you are cutting your teeth on a well known GPLv3 application and hope to duplicate methods and operations other patented applications already perform but are getting sick and tired of not being able to just borrow their code, cite their copyright and then move on?
Or perhaps you are cutting your teeth on a well known GPLv3 application and hope to duplicate methods and operations other patented applications already perform but are getting sick and tired of not being able to just borrow their code, cite their copyright and then move on?
Don't Google use Apache in Android specifically so they can keep parts of it closed?
Us programmers are egotists. When we invent something cool, we want to share it with the world rather than keep it to ourselves. Just look at the open software movement if you don't believe me.
You make a good point. Artists and musicians tend to hold a similar mindset, which is why they are often poor business people.
Comments
I think the problem with software patents is that they have no physical embodiment for laymen (Patent clerks) to be able to "see" and "Feel" and therefore make wise judgments on issuing patents. This leads to some vague patents, which when held by a small company/individual, will be easily invalidated by a large corporation in court, but when held by a large corporation, can be pretty much undefeatable.
For example:
There is a recent suit claims World of Warcraft and Call of Duty violate a software patent;
Not a patent that describes a novel rendering engine, or networking code, but a patent that (I'm Summarizing here) covers the idea of "representing players as 3-d avatars in a virtual space and allowing other players to see them" (This patent is held by a small company, and will probably be invalidated)
I think that software should be patentable, but, my common sense (as a small web-developer) says that these patents need to be significantly novel, AND specific, AND be tied to an IMPLIMENTATION.
I guy i know holds that patent to the idea of "displaying web site users who are looking a specific product, other products that were commonly purchased together by other consumers" He makes quite a bit of money from this.
This IS NOT a patent on the METHOD he uses to track the most popular products or the way he structured his Database or his specific implementation of code, But the “IDEA” of LISTING commonly purchased products.
As someone else here mentioned, when dealing with ethereal things as software, it’s hard to distinguish IDEAS from INVENTIONS, and too many IDEAS are being patented as INVENTIONS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Woah woah woah, did you even read the wiki page? You're twisting their words! These people aren't asking for forever - that would be unconstitutional! They're much too reasonable for that - all that they want is "forever less one day".
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72
yes, i agree. which leads me to believe that most people, here, who disagree with Posner do not / have not ever worked as the software application developer.
Just the opposite. Maybe a programmer who is just a hack might see it Posner's way, but those programmers who have been in the field for decades can attest to the high level of invention that has been involved in the work we are able to do today. LIke most consumers, with heads in the sand, too many seem to believe what we see and can do today was not the result of hard work of often many people. Much were given away, most supported by governments paying the salaries and supporting the mathematicians and scientists who did the work. If the inventions were basically paid for the taxpayers, then it makes some sense for the IP to be publicly available. Much other inventions were under the auspices of private companies (often under contract with the government).
But, make no mistake, just because it is software does not mean it should not protected. In every case, it would be possible to render software in hardware, and thus be subject to IP protection under the old concepts of what a protectable invention is. That fact that due to Alan Turing, John Von Neuman, Alonzo Church, and Kurt Goedel, we have general purpose computers that allow us to render machines in software, it should not mean that our soft machines should not be protected.
How is it possible that a 73 year old chap with obviously no clue of technological requirements can be in in a position to judge about cases like this!
This is absolutely outrageous!
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
Just the opposite. Maybe a programmer who is just a hack might see it Posner's way, but those programmers who have been in the field for decades can attest to the high level of invention that has been involved in the work we are able to do today.
Us programmers are egotists. When we invent something cool, we want to share it with the world rather than keep it to ourselves. Just look at the open software movement if you don't believe me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1
Can you imagine 100 years ago a baseball pitcher being granted a patent on a curve ball? Applying what you wrote, the ideal is "how do I make a pitch curve?" and the invention is "spinning the ball as I release it". I can say with full certainty that a curve ball could never have been patented (as we all know it never was). Anybody with a baseball, in theory, can spin a baseball pitch and maybe even make it curve. Likewise, anyone with a phone can slide their finger across the phone. That's why I don't believe it's an invention.
No, you stole that from cricket.
:P
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Under the US Constitution, a judge's job is to INTERPRET the law. A judge who says "I don't like the law" and then refuses to enforce it is an activist judge.
That's exactly why, what this senile, old fart has done is wrong.
I can't see his dismissal "with prejudice" surviving an appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
And what about Apple? They spent a pretty penny too on developing their phone and other devices. They built all sorts of expensive test chambers etc. And along comes other companies trying to release their own generic versions of Apple's innovation.
I think the biggest difference is reason that John Carmack made this quote:
“The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.”
It is possible to develop very similar software given a similar set of constraints. Should the first to market (or even first to idea phase with the largest pockets) be allowed to patent an idea that could be developed independently? When it comes to pharma, there is a large lead up time for the research required to create a new protein or medicine. Patenting the idea of having a medicine that cures headaches quicker would be in the same spirit as some of these software patents.
Ah yes, telling others to become great instead of trolling on forums. I'm sure the irony of that is lost on you, no?
Why is that any different than any other patent?
You don't even need to change the words (although it probably makes more sense if you replace 'program' with 'device'):
“The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.”
Like it or not, our Constitution allows for inventors to get exclusivity for their invention for some time period. That's the law of the land and no amount of whining will change it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab
I love it. Good old AppleInsider members telling us how it should be.
I know what, how about becoming a great man/woman such as Posner so people actually take note of what you say instead of taking part of the eternal forum circle jerk?
+1
This man's been doing this for decades, and some fanboy taking 5 minutes away from playing a game or updating FB thinks they have a better understanding of patent law and jurisprudence... Ugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab
I love it. Good old AppleInsider members telling us how it should be.
I know what, how about becoming a great man/woman such as Posner so people actually take note of what you say instead of taking part of the eternal forum circle jerk?
There's no need to be blinded by expertise.
Posner is a "great man", obviously. He's educated and a leader in his field. So were the participants at the Wannsee Conference (distinguished lawyers, legal scholars, legislators.) But that's for a different thread.
Really? The Hitler card? So soon into the debate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvanleuvan
I think the problem with software patents is that they have no physical embodiment for laymen (Patent clerks) to be able to "see" and "Feel" and therefore make wise judgments on issuing patents. This leads to some vague patents, which when held by a small company/individual, will be easily invalidated by a large corporation in court, but when held by a large corporation, can be pretty much undefeatable.
For example:
There is a recent suit claims World of Warcraft and Call of Duty violate a software patent;
Not a patent that describes a novel rendering engine, or networking code, but a patent that (I'm Summarizing here) covers the idea of "representing players as 3-d avatars in a virtual space and allowing other players to see them" (This patent is held by a small company, and will probably be invalidated)
I think that software should be patentable, but, my common sense (as a small web-developer) says that these patents need to be significantly novel, AND specific, AND be tied to an IMPLIMENTATION.
I guy i know holds that patent to the idea of "displaying web site users who are looking a specific product, other products that were commonly purchased together by other consumers" He makes quite a bit of money from this.
This IS NOT a patent on the METHOD he uses to track the most popular products or the way he structured his Database or his specific implementation of code, But the “IDEA” of LISTING commonly purchased products.
As someone else here mentioned, when dealing with ethereal things as software, it’s hard to distinguish IDEAS from INVENTIONS, and too many IDEAS are being patented as INVENTIONS.
Excellent summary - vague "business methods" patents and "ideas" are stifling innovation, not helping it. Patents are supposed to be novel inventions, not great (but nebulous) ideas.
"For software, the patent system has become so unwieldy as to be useless. Many have opined on this. It is currently almost impossible to write a new line of code that doesn't infringe on some software patent somewhere. I don't think that's what Jefferson intended.
Patents were written into the Constitution to promote the development of new ideas by providing a government-granted monopoly for a fixed period, after which the ideas would pass into the public domain. We as a country benefited from the advancement of knowledge, and inventors benefited from the fruit of their labors. Life was good." - http://lminfernaloptimist.blogspot.com/2010/02/it-biotech-and-patents-when-worlds.html
For those that think patents for software is a good thing doesn't have a clue about software development.
I chuckle at the arguement regarding hardware patents which are custom implementations of software algorithms to that of software algorithm designs which are the same and not considered innovative.
So, it's innovation if I use an IC with a DSP and EEPROM memory to perform actions that I can leverage with a GPGPU or CPU and the first example due to it being a custom chip is considered an invention but the unique use of the CPUs options and/or the GPGPU is not?
Classic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Most developers, including me, would agree with Posner. Software patents are evil, unnecessary and make our job of delivering innovative software harder.
The bean counters in our organisations might disagree though.
Stop. Please don't speak for most developers. I personally never authorized you to speak for me and I doubt the thousands of developers I've met and worked with would either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Why is that any different than any other patent?
You don't even need to change the words (although it probably makes more sense if you replace 'program' with 'device'):
“The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.”
Like it or not, our Constitution allows for inventors to get exclusivity for their invention for some time period. That's the law of the land and no amount of whining will change it.
But the Supreme Court has voiced concerns with extending patent protection to software, which they declined to do on two previous occasions, and continuing questions with more recent cases. Changes may eventually come despite business interest protests.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/01/resurrecting-the-supreme-courts-software-patent-ban-not-ready/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/supreme-court-orders-do-over-on-key-software-patent-ruling/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/opinion-eff-should-call-for-the-elimination-of-software-patents/
Quote:
Originally Posted by pragmatous
"For software, the patent system has become so unwieldy as to be useless. Many have opined on this. It is currently almost impossible to write a new line of code that doesn't infringe on some software patent somewhere. I don't think that's what Jefferson intended.
Patents were written into the Constitution to promote the development of new ideas by providing a government-granted monopoly for a fixed period, after which the ideas would pass into the public domain. We as a country benefited from the advancement of knowledge, and inventors benefited from the fruit of their labors. Life was good." - http://lminfernaloptimist.blogspot.com/2010/02/it-biotech-and-patents-when-worlds.html
For those that think patents for software is a good thing doesn't have a clue about software development.
Thanks for coming on and creating a profile solely to bitch about the fact your job of solving a problem in software now will require you to implement a new procedure to avoid patent infringement. Who in the hell would pay you $90K+ a year to just copy and paste other creators work? Perhaps the Linux Community who has seen $10 Billion+ infused by Corporations who are selling hardware paired with the OS?
Or perhaps you are cutting your teeth on a well known GPLv3 application and hope to duplicate methods and operations other patented applications already perform but are getting sick and tired of not being able to just borrow their code, cite their copyright and then move on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Or perhaps you are cutting your teeth on a well known GPLv3 application and hope to duplicate methods and operations other patented applications already perform but are getting sick and tired of not being able to just borrow their code, cite their copyright and then move on?
Don't Google use Apache in Android specifically so they can keep parts of it closed?
Unlike what they'd have to do under GPLv3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Us programmers are egotists. When we invent something cool, we want to share it with the world rather than keep it to ourselves. Just look at the open software movement if you don't believe me.
You make a good point. Artists and musicians tend to hold a similar mindset, which is why they are often poor business people.