Patrick Elliott wrote:
> which is that such things are, "obvious to those skilled 
> in the art and hence unpatentable". 

Except they're not always, and it's not the patent examiner's job to say 
whether some *other* expert asked the same question would invent the same 
invention.

> "Sorry, but even if this is a blindingly obvious solution for people 
> that know how the machine works, its still patentable."

That's fine, but that's not really what the patent examiner looks at. Again, 
"obvious" has a technical legal definition that does *not* mean "anyone 
skilled in the art would have thought about this if asked."

Was RSA or Diffie-Helman "obvious"?  Was First Virtual "obvious"?  Both 
pretty much astounded the experts in the field, all of whom thought it was 
impossible to do such a thing at all.

Hell, I have a patent just issued on how to print different receipts on a 
credit card terminal depending on what you just bought.  It was damned 
obvious to me, but after talking to three manufacturers of terminals and 
asking how to do it and getting back "there's no way to do that on our brand 
of terminals", we figured it wasn't nearly so obvious to the experts in the 
field as it seemed.

> So... Tell me again how no one is making this absurd argument?

OK. Nobody said it's a new machine. They said it's an improved machine.

If I figure out how to add color to TV broadcasts, have I not simply 
improved the television?

> I am sure I linked the groklaw page talking about this some place, but 
> maybe I didn't..
> 
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785
> 

"""

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
   Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
     Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785

Wrong button. Try that again.

"""
What I get from the paper is that there isn't really a difference between 
what a human does with a paper and pencil and what a computer does, except 
speed.
"""

There's really not a difference between what an automobile does and what a 
human does when walking except speed. Does that mean an automobile is 
unpatentable?

There's really not a difference between a machine that manufactures 
integrated circuits and what a human could theoretically do with a 
sufficiently steady hand and a sufficiently small pair of tweezers, either. 
So out goes that patent.

There's really nothing that google does that a human with paper and pencil 
couldn't do, so nothing google does is worthy of patent protection.

Why patent a new and more efficient space ship engine, if a human can *jump* 
to the moon, in theory with enough leg strength?

Do you see how silly that sounds?







"""
Computer programming is an exact science in that all the properties of a 
program and all the consequences of executing it in any given environment 
can, in principle, be found out from the text of the program itself by means 
of purely deductive reasoning.
"""
Except this isn't true. Programming computers is *not* purely mathematical. 
*Thinking* about programming computers is purely mathematical. A computer 
program that produces only mathematical results is, however, useless. And, 
indeed, computational theory proves you cannot determine all the 
consequences of executing it, so the statement is factually incorrect.




"""
If we build an electronic device that does the same calculations as the 
automated typewriter but with symbols encoded electronically instead, does 
their meaning change? Of course not, the symbols still mean the mathematics. 
The maths don't describe the computer or anything physical in the computer. 
The maths don't describe the software either.
"""

OK, so let's outlaw patents on any computer program that does no input or 
output and has no interaction with physical systems outside the CPU and 
memory subsystem. I'm down with that.





"Software is data."  That's why you're not patenting software, but rather 
the machine programmed with the software, which is what I was saying. 
They're claiming that adding the instructions makes the computer a new and 
more useful invention than the computer without the instructions. Find me a 
patent claim that claims to be patenting software itself, and I'll believe 
you. *That* is what I'm talking about.

You're saying "that should not be the case." I happen to agree, altho there 
are clearly methods and lists of instructions that I think should be 
patentable. But that's just debating a subject that we have no control over.

All the other crap in the groklaw page is confusion over whether bits have 
color.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
   Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
     Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>> So... Tell me again how no one is making this absurd argument?
> 
> OK. Nobody said it's a new machine. They said it's an improved machine.
> 
> If I figure out how to add color to TV broadcasts, have I not simply 
> improved the television?
> 
Semantics. Seriously, try that one on something with firmware. Do you 
patent the firmware, which isn't the *machine*, or the machine you load 
it into? Both? Issue a new patent for every "improved" version of the 
firmware? There is a difference between building something that is an 
improvement, and making "trivial" improvements, which amount to the 
equivalent of sticking a new poster in the paster stand out front of 
your theater. Its hardly *at all* relevant whether its a sheet of paper, 
if your "poster" is a display screen, and you updated it to show new 
content, or even do something with it that it didn't before. The "data" 
is still independent of the bloody container, at least for *most* 
things. Yet, the moment you can't "see" the result of the change, like a 
movie poster in a digital display, it becomes now "data", but 
"improvement"? WTF? I am betting that your terminal's non-obvious design 
didn't involve taking an "existing" one, and just adding software, did 
it? Had to design a new one that would accept such software?

Anyway, the whole thing is a bloody mess, because, as with my poster 
example, it gets damned fuzzy as to when software stops being "data" and 
suddenly becomes "improvement", and therefor can be/requires patent. 
Where is that line exactly? Oh, and remember, we are using the patent 
judges definition of "obvious" not the one you or me would, when looking 
at two identical digital posters, which just happen to contain different 
data... ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>> So... Tell me again how no one is making this absurd argument?
>>
>> OK. Nobody said it's a new machine. They said it's an improved machine.
>>
>> If I figure out how to add color to TV broadcasts, have I not simply 
>> improved the television?
>>
> Semantics.

Bingo! That's my point.  Guess what the whole court system is about? Semantics!

> making "trivial" improvements, 

How do you judge how "trivial" an improvement is? If you come up with a new 
calculation for an X-Ray machine's firmware that saves 30% more lives 
because the bad stuff shows up better, is that "trivial"?  It's math, but 
the math isn't what you're patenting. It's applying that math to improve the 
performace of that X-Ray machine that's patented. There's no patent on using 
the same math to improve the performance of your outboard motor.

> movie poster in a digital display, it becomes now "data", but 
> "improvement"? WTF? 

You're missing the point of the argument, probably on purpose.

You're arguing that a printing press shouldn't be patentable because all it 
does is add data to paper.

 > I am betting that your terminal's non-obvious design
> didn't involve taking an "existing" one, and just adding software, did 
> it? Had to design a new one that would accept such software?

No. My point was that *you* can't look at a patent and judge what is obvious 
*in retrospect*.

First Virtual invented an obvious way of handling "electronic commerce". Yet 
some of the greatest minds in the industry had spent years trying to figure 
out how to make it work. You could explain it to someone in 30 seconds, and 
they'd get this big s__t-eating grin as they realized what you were saying. 
But if it was obvious, there wouldn't have been annual conferences with 
hundreds of experts participating trying to discuss the best way of making 
it work.

> Anyway, the whole thing is a bloody mess, because, as with my poster 
> example, it gets damned fuzzy as to when software stops being "data" and 
> suddenly becomes "improvement", and therefor can be/requires patent. 
> Where is that line exactly? 

Well, yes, that's my point. You can't just say "it's software, it's not an 
improvement."   And you can't say "now that I see the answer, it's obvious."

> Oh, and remember, we are using the patent 
> judges definition of "obvious" not the one you or me would, 

That's also what I've been saying, repeatedly. "Obvious" to a patent 
examiner has a specific legal meaning independent of how easy it is to come 
up with. That *is* the definition I use when talking about patents.

Look at it this way.  Networking is just moving bits around, right? Is it 
really an "improvement" to move them faster? Do you think 1Mbps ethernet 
does excatly the same thing as 100Gbps ethernet does, only slower? I mean, 
there's nothing the phone system does that a human being couldn't do with a 
pencil and paper, only faster.  There's nothing wireless networking does 
that a wired network couldn't do, only with wires.  Why isn't "networking 
without wires" just as unpatentable as "poster without paper"?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
   Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
     Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Semantics. Seriously, try that one on something with firmware. 

Note that if you use the rule "it's something a human could do with pencil 
and paper, only faster", you rule out patents on actual CPUs, on technology 
that makes chips faster, etc. Since they're by definition only doing what a 
human can do, only faster, then no improvements in semiconductor manufacture 
or chip layout can be patented either.

You have to be really careful when you start changing things that you don't 
start taking away stuff that really *should* be patentable. (At least, if 
you believe patents are worthwhile at all.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
   Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
     Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> So... Tell me again how no one is making this absurd argument?
>>>
>>> OK. Nobody said it's a new machine. They said it's an improved machine.
>>>
>>> If I figure out how to add color to TV broadcasts, have I not simply 
>>> improved the television?
>>>
>> Semantics.
> 
> Bingo! That's my point.  Guess what the whole court system is about? 
> Semantics!
> 
>> making "trivial" improvements, 
> 
> How do you judge how "trivial" an improvement is? If you come up with a 
> new calculation for an X-Ray machine's firmware that saves 30% more 
> lives because the bad stuff shows up better, is that "trivial"?  It's 
> math, but the math isn't what you're patenting. It's applying that math 
> to improve the performace of that X-Ray machine that's patented. There's 
> no patent on using the same math to improve the performance of your 
> outboard motor.
> 
>> movie poster in a digital display, it becomes now "data", but 
>> "improvement"? WTF? 
> 
> You're missing the point of the argument, probably on purpose.
> 
> You're arguing that a printing press shouldn't be patentable because all 
> it does is add data to paper.
> 

No I am not. I am arguing that the press **is**, changing the lettering 
around, so as to print a new book **is not**, nor, for that matter, is 
the bloody book in question. Software is an "improvement", the same way 
that re-arranging the letters on a printing press is. You are not 
changing what the original machine *is*, the whole point of the machine 
in the first place is to "allow you to print more than one page, with 
different words", so changing what is already supposed to be changed 
doesn't a) make it an improved machine, or b) require a new patent.

So, how is this "different" from my digital poster example, or even a 
computer. The whole point of both is that you can "change" the content, 
to have the "result" of its operation be something else. Why is 
rearranging symbols on a printing press not generating patents every 
time you do it, while a digital poster "might be", if its something it 
can already do, but the prior arrangement of symbols didn't support, and 
a computer with software on it **always is**? The only apparent 
difference to me seems to be how many things the machine is supposed to 
be able to do, and how complicated the data has to be to *get* that 
result. At which point you run afoul of defining "complex" again. What 
is complex on a PC where you have to write everything, including the 
graphics library. On one where you are using the existing library, and 
your "improvement" amounts to a few hundred lines of code though? How, 
other than by some argument made by software vendors that they are 
different, do these things *differ* in any logical or consistent manner? 
Or, to put it another way, at what point does your printing press become 
and "improvable machine", based solely upon what set of data you *apply* 
to it to change its behavior? Would, for example, a printer loaded with 
postscript be patentable, if you, say.. designed it to do nothing but 
print the same pamphlet forever, without stopping? Or does the fact that 
it does stop matter? Why? Why is it stopping, when done with the 
process, not patentable, but an application working the same way, where 
it has to be "loaded" into the machine, then unloads later, patentable, 
if loading postscript to what is basically a PC with a different output 
system isn't?

Where is this imaginary line drawn between these things, and why is it 
so damned inconsistent as to when, how, and if, it qualifies as 
"improving" the machine?

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Semantics. Seriously, try that one on something with firmware. 
> 
> Note that if you use the rule "it's something a human could do with 
> pencil and paper, only faster", you rule out patents on actual CPUs, on 
> technology that makes chips faster, etc. Since they're by definition 
> only doing what a human can do, only faster, then no improvements in 
> semiconductor manufacture or chip layout can be patented either.
> 
No I fracking don't. Its not enough that a human can do it. The 
requirement is not that it be a human doing it, it be that a human can 
"follow the instructions". A CPU replaces the human **not the 
instructions** the human is following. That is where the difference is. 
Software isn't a CPU, its not the "thing" doing anything, its, 
"instructions on what to do, using what ever tools are available to do 
it, to get a specific result". This is not the same as the thing that 
processes those instructions, its not the shovel digging the hole, its 
the note saying, "how deep, and where", its not a CPU, its the thing 
telling the CPU what its is supposed to do. It isn't the human being, or 
the wood cabinet they are building, its the bloody sheet of paper 
telling them, "Insert tab A into slot B.". And, to state it again, 
stuffing the sheet into a box of parts, and claiming that this makes the 
instructions part of a "patent", just because its not part of the box 
contents is not a valid argument, any more than the even sillier 
suggestion that, while I am building the cabinet, I become patentable, 
or, more precisely, "The interactions of any human with our set of 
instructions, which turn them into a manufacturer of cabinets.", which 
is what some of these things amount to claiming, only without using the 
term "human". But, the point of the distinction about "non-patentability 
of algorithms", is that you can't replace "human", with bird, monkey, 
space alien, or *CPU*, and suddenly have the definition thrown out. 
Either it is something that falls under the definition, or it isn't. If 
it isn't, then you need something more substantial than, "Well, its 
because a person isn't doing it."

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785
> 
> Wrong button. Try that again.
> 
> """
> What I get from the paper is that there isn't really a difference 
> between what a human does with a paper and pencil and what a computer 
> does, except speed.
> """
> 
> There's really not a difference between what an automobile does and what 
> a human does when walking except speed. Does that mean an automobile is 
> unpatentable?
> 
Once again.. Its not what it *does*. If you tell a person to travel to 
NY, and assuming you had a car that could auto-navigate, tell *it* to 
drive to NY, the instructions telling to to drive there are not fracking 
patentable. Its not the **action** that determines what is and isn't, 
its the fact that you are giving instructions on what *to do*, which 
makes the **instructions** non-patentable. Software is, on a basic 
level, **instructions**, not the "thing" itself. You don't melt down a 
batch of bloody Java code, send it through an injection molder, to get a 
dashboard. Its not a thing in that sense. You *might* ***tell*** the 
injection molder to add X amount of plastic, using software, which is 
not the same thing as *building* a molder, or *making* a dashboard. Its 
"instructing" the machine to do something a specific way, which is human 
repeatable. Its not the ability to do it that matters, its the actually 
instruction, "Do this precisely this way, if you want the next step to 
be right.", just like if you where following a mathematical formula.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> a computer with software on it **always is**?

Nobody said it always is. There are many patents rejected, both for software 
and hardware.

> Where is this imaginary line drawn between these things, and why is it 
> so damned inconsistent as to when, how, and if, it qualifies as 
> "improving" the machine?

Because you're patenting the results, not how you get there.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
   Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
     Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Software isn't a CPU, its not the "thing" doing anything,

And that's why people don't patent software. There's really no point in 
pursuing this if you're not going actually look at actual patents.

 > It isn't the human being, or
> the wood cabinet they are building, its the bloody sheet of paper 
> telling them, "Insert tab A into slot B.". 

No, it's the cabinet you get by following those instructions.

> is not a valid argument, 

How do you know, given that that's exactly the question before the supreme 
court right now?

> But, the point of the distinction about "non-patentability 
> of algorithms", is that you can't replace "human", with bird, monkey, 
> space alien, or *CPU*, and suddenly have the definition thrown out. 

People don't patent algorithms. They either patent computer hardware that 
accomplishes a task, or they patent an algorithm applied to accomplish a 
specific task.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
     Then he is not omnipotent.
   Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
     Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message