 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090603224807259
Why is it that I find myself thinking this will have precisely zero
effect on anything?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090603224807259
>
> Why is it that I find myself thinking this will have precisely zero
> effect on anything?
Well, except that he's wrong.
Non-mathematical algorithm: steps to process raw corn, blocks of cheese, and
blocks of plastic into little bags of cheetos.
Non-mathematical algorithm: Use discrete log to negotiate a shared key for
public key encryption. Discrete log is a mathematical algorithm. DH key
exchange is not.
In the US, for many years (and probably still now) mathematical algorithms
cannot be patented.
> as if numbers were somehow different from other kinds of precise information
Of course they are. Numbers have no units. Measure me out three of milk.
> If software code is "a series of instructions" then it's like a manual
No, it's like an industrial process, which is patentable. Why should an
industrial process written down in a book be patentable but an industrial
process written down in a machine-readable file not? Indeed, that's how
software patents are written. You don't patent the code. You patent machines
running the code. Trying to distinguish this from patenting the instructions
for using other technology is going to be *very* difficult.
Mind, I'm not saying we should have software patents. I'm just saying that
the argument "all software is mathematical and hence should not be subject
to patent" is an invalid argument.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-6-2009 21:46, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090603224807259
>
> Why is it that I find myself thinking this will have precisely zero
> effect on anything?
>
Because you suspect that anyone with enough political influence to make
a change has never heard of Knuth and is proud of it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Well, except that he's wrong.
Heh. Few people would have the nerve to suggest such a thing. ;-)
> > as if numbers were somehow different from other kinds of precise
> information
>
> Of course they are. Numbers have no units. Measure me out three of milk.
Units can be encoded as numbers. Well *everything* can be encoded as
numbers. And numbers, of course, can be encoded as things.
> > If software code is "a series of instructions" then it's like a manual
>
> No, it's like an industrial process, which is patentable. Why should an
> industrial process written down in a book be patentable but an
> industrial process written down in a machine-readable file not? Indeed,
> that's how software patents are written. You don't patent the code. You
> patent machines running the code.
Not last time I checked. E.g., the patent on LZW, the patent on using
XOR drawing, the patent on clicking a button to order stuff off the
Internet, etc.
If you have a machine that does something, which somewhere involves a
computer, sure, that should be patentable. But I don't think you should
be able to patent the fact that a if you multiply two numbers together
and then multiply the product by the multiplicative inverse of the
second number in some finite field it yields the first number should be
patentable. That's more or less the definition of what multiplication
and multiplicative inverses *are*!
> Mind, I'm not saying we should have software patents. I'm just saying
> that the argument "all software is mathematical and hence should not be
> subject to patent" is an invalid argument.
I'm just upset that I could sit at my desk, make up some computer
program, and then get sued millions because somebody I've never heard of
already thought of it.
But hey, I guess that's no different than some guy in his guarage making
a new extra-soft kind of foam and then getting sued because some
petrochemical giant somewhere already makes something similar...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Why is it that I find myself thinking this will have precisely zero
>> effect on anything?
>>
> Because you suspect that anyone with enough political influence to make
> a change has never heard of Knuth and is proud of it?
Actually, it's because in this world, by definition the good guys always
lose.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-6-2009 22:25, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Why is it that I find myself thinking this will have precisely zero
>>> effect on anything?
>>>
>> Because you suspect that anyone with enough political influence to
>> make a change has never heard of Knuth and is proud of it?
>
> Actually, it's because in this world, by definition the good guys always
> lose.
>
I disagree. You may be overgeneralizing from the fact that you are a
good guy and a loser.
;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> In the US, for many years (and probably still now) mathematical algorithms
> cannot be patented.
You mean eg. LZW is not a mathematical algorithm?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Actually, it's because in this world, by definition the good guys
>> always lose.
>>
> I disagree. You may be overgeneralizing from the fact that you are a
> good guy and a loser.
Maybe it's just confirmation bias, but it seems like whenever there's
any kind of contest, the good guys inevitably lose. (Except in stories.
Mostly.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-6-2009 22:40, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Actually, it's because in this world, by definition the good guys
>>> always lose.
>>>
>> I disagree. You may be overgeneralizing from the fact that you are a
>> good guy and a loser.
>
> Maybe it's just confirmation bias, but it seems like whenever there's
> any kind of contest, the good guys inevitably lose. (Except in stories.
> Mostly.)
>
We have this teeny weeny problem of defining who the 'good guys' are.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4a3fec45$1@news.povray.org...
> >> Actually, it's because in this world, by definition the good guys
> >> always lose.
> > I disagree. You may be overgeneralizing from the fact that you are a
> > good guy and a loser.
> Maybe it's just confirmation bias, but it seems like whenever there's
> any kind of contest, the good guys inevitably lose. (Except in stories.
> Mostly.)
There are no good guys. There are winners and there are losers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Units can be encoded as numbers. Well *everything* can be encoded as
> numbers. And numbers, of course, can be encoded as things.
Nope. Sorry. That jug of milk in the fridge there? You can't encode that as
numbers. No amount of numbers will pasteurize it either.
>> > If software code is "a series of instructions" then it's like a manual
>>
>> No, it's like an industrial process, which is patentable. Why should
>> an industrial process written down in a book be patentable but an
>> industrial process written down in a machine-readable file not?
>> Indeed, that's how software patents are written. You don't patent the
>> code. You patent machines running the code.
>
> Not last time I checked. E.g., the patent on LZW, the patent on using
> XOR drawing, the patent on clicking a button to order stuff off the
> Internet, etc.
Read the claims carefully. "We patent a computer doing ..."
> If you have a machine that does something, which somewhere involves a
> computer, sure, that should be patentable. But I don't think you should
> be able to patent the fact that a if you multiply two numbers together
> and then multiply the product by the multiplicative inverse of the
> second number in some finite field it yields the first number should be
> patentable.
It isn't. *Using* that to create public key encryption is patentable.
A coil of wire isn't patentable. Using a coil of wire to tune a radio
receiver is patentable.
> But hey, I guess that's no different than some guy in his guarage making
> a new extra-soft kind of foam and then getting sued because some
> petrochemical giant somewhere already makes something similar...
Yes, exactly.
Now, the problem with software patents isn't that you're patenting the
software, but that people try to read into the claims all kinds of formal
equivalents they didn't think of when they wrote the patent.
If you patent a way to make asprin, I don't have to worry about doing the
exact same steps if I use it to make motor oil.
But I've seen software patents on things like mechanisms to dial telephones,
and the argument in court was along the lines of "well, if you substitute
the credit card number for the phone number, and you substitute the person's
voice with his signature, and you substitute the vendor's PBX with his cash
register, then Visa is violating our voice-dialing patent by accepting
credit cards!" That's just absurd.
And in every case, you could easily look at that patent and understand what
they were trying to patent, and understand exactly how that didn't cover
what the other party was doing, yet it still gets argued stupidly in front
of judges.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> In the US, for many years (and probably still now) mathematical algorithms
>> cannot be patented.
>
> You mean eg. LZW is not a mathematical algorithm?
The operations it does are mathematical. *Using it for compression* is
what's patented. Not actually running the algorithm, but running the
algorithm with the intent to compress the data.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Units can be encoded as numbers. Well *everything* can be encoded as
>> numbers. And numbers, of course, can be encoded as things.
>
> Nope. Sorry. That jug of milk in the fridge there? You can't encode that
> as numbers. No amount of numbers will pasteurize it either.
"Scotty! Beam me up!"
or, "Encoding properties of mass for lightspeed transportation across
distance"
or, "Overcoming Heisenberg uncertainty issues in localised systems and
reconstructing that data set in another position"
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Units can be encoded as numbers. Well *everything* can be encoded as
>>> numbers. And numbers, of course, can be encoded as things.
>>
>> Nope. Sorry. That jug of milk in the fridge there? You can't encode
>> that as numbers. No amount of numbers will pasteurize it either.
>
> "Scotty! Beam me up!"
>
> or, "Encoding properties of mass for lightspeed transportation across
> distance"
>
> or, "Overcoming Heisenberg uncertainty issues in localised systems and
> reconstructing that data set in another position"
Yeah, let me know when you have a working model there to show the patent
office.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New a écrit :
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> In the US, for many years (and probably still now) mathematical
>>> algorithms cannot be patented.
>>
>> You mean eg. LZW is not a mathematical algorithm?
>
> The operations it does are mathematical. *Using it for compression* is
> what's patented. Not actually running the algorithm, but running the
> algorithm with the intent to compress the data.
>
So, technically you could argue that you're using LZW not to compress,
but to obfuscate your data? A slight compression being just a
side-effect :-)
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
> So, technically you could argue that you're using LZW not to compress,
> but to obfuscate your data? A slight compression being just a
> side-effect :-)
Yes, exactly. If, for example, the steps you follow to do LZW compression
was one step of an encryption algorithm, it wouldn't be encumbered by the
patent. Look at the patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,558,302.PN.&OS=PN/4,558,302&RS=PN/4,558,302
"""
I claim:
1. In a data compression and data decompression system, compression
apparatus for compressing a stream of data character signals into a
compressed stream of code signals, said compression apparatus comprising ...
"""
If you're not compressing data with it, it's not patented. Just like if
you're not encryption data, modular exponentiation isn't patented.
That patent also patents hardware implementations of LZW. Would you say that
hardware isn't patentable in the EU, because it's implementing a "software
patent"?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New a écrit :
> Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
>> So, technically you could argue that you're using LZW not to compress,
>> but to obfuscate your data? A slight compression being just a
>> side-effect :-)
>
> Yes, exactly. If, for example, the steps you follow to do LZW
> compression was one step of an encryption algorithm, it wouldn't be
> encumbered by the patent.
Then if I'm understanding correctly, the patent applicability is decided
by looking at the final purpose of the use of the thing patented?
> That patent also patents hardware implementations of LZW. Would you say
> that hardware isn't patentable in the EU, because it's implementing a
> "software patent"?
As far as I understand patent law (which is probably not much ;-) ), the
hardware is one thing, the algorithm it implements is another. If the
hardware is patented I'm free to implement exactly the same function on
another hardware. If the method is patented I can't do it at all.
It would be perfectly understandable to patent a particular hardware
doing LZW compression, but not to put a patent on every unspecified
hardware that does LZW compression. The issue may revolve around the
generality of the claims in the patent...
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
> Then if I'm understanding correctly, the patent applicability is decided
> by looking at the final purpose of the use of the thing patented?
Methods and processes are patented as "process to do X". If you're not doing
X, it doesn't count. Read the first claim in that link I posted, and you'll
see what the language is like.
> As far as I understand patent law (which is probably not much ;-) ), the
> hardware is one thing, the algorithm it implements is another.
Right. You can't patent the algorithm. You patent hardware running the
algorithm.
> If the
> hardware is patented I'm free to implement exactly the same function on
> another hardware.
It depends how the hardware is described. If you describe the hardware as
"mechanism for inserting a controllable delay between strokes of windshield
wipers", it doesn't matter if you implement it with electronics, vacuum
lines, or a mechanical cog. But if you use the exact same hardware to time
the beeps of the burglar alarm, it's not violating the patent that patents
mechanisms for the delay of wipers.
If the patent says "Boil willow bark for 2 hours, then mix with salt and
carbon-rich iron shavings", it doesn't matter whether you use a cauldron or
a stainless steel pot to make your aspirin.
> It would be perfectly understandable to patent a particular hardware
> doing LZW compression, but not to put a patent on every unspecified
> hardware that does LZW compression. The issue may revolve around the
> generality of the claims in the patent...
Well, I posted a link to the patent. Look at it. :-)
The patent on the hardware is something like claim 29, which sounds like a
hardware description of what registers you'd need in a compression chip that
implements LZW.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
> Then if I'm understanding correctly, the patent applicability is decided
> by looking at the final purpose of the use of the thing patented?
To answer technically, the patent applicability is decided by looking at the
claims. If you claim "A method for processing photographs to reduce
red-eye", then to violate it, someone has to work with photographs and has
to reduce red-eye. The exact same pixel math applied to a photo without any
eyes in it isn't violating the patent.
But it depends on the claim.
I've never seen a claim that says "We claim that aX^2 +bX +c = 0 is ...."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> In the US, for many years (and probably still now) mathematical algorithms
> >> cannot be patented.
> >
> > You mean eg. LZW is not a mathematical algorithm?
> The operations it does are mathematical. *Using it for compression* is
> what's patented. Not actually running the algorithm, but running the
> algorithm with the intent to compress the data.
That sounds nothing more than playing with words in order to get around
the restrictions. A bit like "I'm not stealing, I'm just borrowing". Imagine
if by saying that you get free of any punishment.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> In the US, for many years (and probably still now) mathematical algorithms
>>>> cannot be patented.
>>> You mean eg. LZW is not a mathematical algorithm?
>
>> The operations it does are mathematical. *Using it for compression* is
>> what's patented. Not actually running the algorithm, but running the
>> algorithm with the intent to compress the data.
>
> That sounds nothing more than playing with words in order to get around
> the restrictions. A bit like "I'm not stealing, I'm just borrowing". Imagine
> if by saying that you get free of any punishment.
Nope. If you're not using it for compression, it's not patented. I'm not
sure why you think it's "playing with words." I mean, damn, 90% of the legal
system is "playing with words."
Now, granted, in this particular case, it's hard to imagine a use for the
operations described in the LZW patent that don't involve compression.
But consider modular exponentiation, another patent that people tended to
complain about. You can use modular exponentiation for things other than
public key encryption - for example, you could imagine that if you take a
prime number of buckets in a hashtable, you could find that using modular
exponentiation somewhere along the way to map a hash code to a bucket would
give greater efficiency. That isn't covered by the RSA patent.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> So, technically you could argue that you're using LZW not to compress,
>> but to obfuscate your data? A slight compression being just a
>> side-effect :-)
>
> Yes, exactly. If, for example, the steps you follow to do LZW
> compression was one step of an encryption algorithm, it wouldn't be
> encumbered by the patent.
>
> If you're not compressing data with it, it's not patented. Just like if
> you're not encryption data, modular exponentiation isn't patented.
Except that, of course, all of this is nonesense. In reality, as soon as
you dare to *touch* LZW, the lawers will say "hey, that's patented", and
threated to sue you off the face of the Earth. The fact that technically
you haven't infringed anything is irrelevant. FUD.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Except that, of course, all of this is nonesense. In reality, as soon as
> you dare to *touch* LZW, the lawers will say "hey, that's patented", and
> threated to sue you off the face of the Earth. The fact that technically
> you haven't infringed anything is irrelevant. FUD.
Well, that's true, yes. But not really relevant to the discusion of the
legalities. I'm still not a lawyer, btw.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Except that, of course, all of this is nonesense. In reality, as soon
>> as you dare to *touch* LZW, the lawers will say "hey, that's
>> patented", and threated to sue you off the face of the Earth. The fact
>> that technically you haven't infringed anything is irrelevant. FUD.
>
> Well, that's true, yes. But not really relevant to the discusion of the
> legalities. I'm still not a lawyer, btw.
The number of technologies on the planet which never really take off
because people keep muttering "oh, that *might* be patented..." is silly.
But sure, arguably the fact that you can shut down a company just by
*threatening* to sue them is a flaw of the justice system itself, not
patent law specifically...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> But sure, arguably the fact that you can shut down a company just by
> *threatening* to sue them is a flaw of the justice system itself, not
> patent law specifically...
Actually, truly silly patent suits tend to be settled pretty fast and cheap.
If (for example) your product was a database engine using LZW-type lookups
for storage and not compression, it's probably pretty easy to get it thrown
out cheaply.
The problem comes when people have to argue over what they think the patent
means by the word "number" or "transmit" or something. Then you get a big
fight, and depending on what the judge thinks, you might win or lose right
there.
For example, the holders of the LZW patent might try to argue that
"compression" includes storage of ASCII codes on disk, since the font glyphs
for letters occupy more than one byte. *That* is the stupid "you certainly
weren't thinking that when you wrote the patent" kinds of stuff I've had to
deal with.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > That sounds nothing more than playing with words in order to get around
> > the restrictions. A bit like "I'm not stealing, I'm just borrowing". Imagine
> > if by saying that you get free of any punishment.
> Nope. If you're not using it for compression, it's not patented.
What I meant was to get around the restriction that mathematical formulae
cannot be patented.
"This is not a mathematical formula. This is using a mathematical formula
for a specific purpose. (Just because this is basically the *only* purpose
for which the formula can be used is irrelevant.)"
In other words, they are getting around the restriction by playing with
words and terms. The end result is still exactly the same: The math formula
has been patented.
(Good thing the LZW patent expired years ago, btw. No need to worry anymore
about making your programs support GIF and whatever.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> "This is not a mathematical formula. This is using a mathematical formula
> for a specific purpose. (Just because this is basically the *only* purpose
> for which the formula can be used is irrelevant.)"
Why would you assert it's the only use for that mathematical formula?
If you patent the same formula for a different use, then both patents are
valid and neither conflicts with the other.
You're working hard to make it not make sense, when in practice, the
difference between "a mathematical formula" and "a mathematical formula
applied a particular algorithm for a particular goal" is a well-understood
difference.
If your mathematical formula is so specific that it's literally impossible
to use it for any other purpose, then it's an algorithm to achieve a
specific goal and no longer a mathematical formula.
(Note that the LZW patent doesn't even have a formula in it, so it's not
really a good example of patenting a mathematical formula.)
> In other words, they are getting around the restriction by playing with
> words and terms. The end result is still exactly the same: The math formula
> has been patented.
No. Really. It hasn't. You can use that formula to draw pretty pictures,
for example, and they have no patent on that.
> (Good thing the LZW patent expired years ago, btw. No need to worry anymore
> about making your programs support GIF and whatever.)
Yep. And the RSA patent.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > (Good thing the LZW patent expired years ago, btw. No need to worry anymore
> > about making your programs support GIF and whatever.)
> Yep. And the RSA patent.
Now we only have about 10 million other software patents to worry about.
I think some software companies (at least in the US) have dedicated people
whose only purpose is to research whether the company is breaking some
software patents. And it's a full-time job.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I think some software companies (at least in the US) have dedicated people
> whose only purpose is to research whether the company is breaking some
> software patents. And it's a full-time job.
Of course, in fact I would say *most* medium to large companies have at
least one person to check this kind of thing. It's not just software, if
you are manufacturing and selling a physical product you also need to check
you are not breaking some patent (unless you think it's fun to go back and
redesign and retool everything), and of course this takes resource. Things
like wiring up LEDs in a certain way or screwing things together in a
certain way are patented.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Things like wiring up LEDs in a certain way or screwing
> things together in a certain way are patented.
I wonder if anybody has a patent on being a jackass?
...come to think of it, I do vaguely recall somebody attempting to claim
a patent on patent trolling...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> ...come to think of it, I do vaguely recall somebody attempting to claim a
> patent on patent trolling...
The fun part comes when you are designing something that will be used in
products sold in many different countries (eg a car or phone), then you have
to make sure you check the patent situation from every possible country.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> It's not just software
My point is that with software that kind of job is ridiculous.
In the European patenting system the principle is that ideas and methods
cannot be patented, only real devices. I think it was like that in the US
as well, a century ago, but it gradually changed.
(Of course companies have their ways to get around the European patenting
system by playing with words, but at least the principle is there. A granted
software patent is much less likely to hold up in court in Europe than it is
in the US.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Now we only have about 10 million other software patents to worry about.
Yep. But as I said, I think the problem is not so much that they're
"software" as that they get argued to mean things entirely outside the scope
of what they're talking about.
> I think some software companies (at least in the US) have dedicated people
> whose only purpose is to research whether the company is breaking some
> software patents. And it's a full-time job.
Are you kidding? There are entire companies who do nothing but buy patents
and then go sue people over them. They're called "patent trolls". :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> No. Really. It hasn't. You can use that formula to draw pretty
> pictures, for example, and they have no patent on that.
Or, to put it another way...
JPEG, MPEG, and MP3 are all patented. That doesn't stop you from using DFT
for other purposes.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> In the European patenting system the principle is that ideas and methods
> cannot be patented, only real devices. I think it was like that in the US
> as well, a century ago, but it gradually changed.
Not particularly. The patents cover computers doing certain things.
"Software patent" isn't really a good name for it as such, since all the
"software patents" are actually patenting computers doing particular
processes. Just like manufacturing patents cover lathes doing particular
processes, and drug patents cover chemists doing particular processes.
> (Of course companies have their ways to get around the European patenting
> system by playing with words, but at least the principle is there. A granted
> software patent is much less likely to hold up in court in Europe than it is
> in the US.)
Yeah. From my experience, I'd say just reading the patent narrowly, instead
of letting people argue "well, obviously anything you could do by speaking
on a telephone you could also do with a computer bouncing a laser off the
space shuttle."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > In the European patenting system the principle is that ideas and methods
> > cannot be patented, only real devices. I think it was like that in the US
> > as well, a century ago, but it gradually changed.
> Not particularly. The patents cover computers doing certain things.
That's my point: Here ideas and ways of doing things (algorithms) cannot
be patented. Only real, physical devices (with working prototypes) can be
patented (at least in principle). You don't patent what the device *does*,
you patent the design of the device itself.
In the US you can get patents for completely ridiculous things. For
example, check patent number 4022227, which is basically a patent for
combing your hair in a certain way. Or patent number 6368227: Swinging
a swing in a certain way.
Or the infamous patent number 5443036: Excercising a cat using a laser
pointer. Note that it does not patent the laser pointer device. It patents
*using* it in a certain way, which is just ridiculous. I'd say limiting
how people can behave in the privacy of their own home is a violation of
basic human rights and constitutional law.
If you want the *device* itself patented, check patents 6505576, 6557495,
6651591 and 6701872 (all of which patent basically the same thing, even
though that should be impossible).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Are you kidding? There are entire companies who do nothing but buy patents
> and then go sue people over them. They're called "patent trolls". :-)
Let's hope the patent trolling patent is granted. That should result in
interesting lawsuits.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> No. Really. It hasn't. You can use that formula to draw pretty
>> pictures, for example, and they have no patent on that.
>
> Or, to put it another way...
>
> JPEG, MPEG, and MP3 are all patented. That doesn't stop you from using
> DFT for other purposes.
And (Hi Andrew!) CDMA is patented for cell phones, but maybe not for other
processes. You could probably use CDMA to deliver cable TV without running
into the same patents you would using it for cell phones.
Now, another problem with "software" patents are that they're hard to
research. Since they get read so widely, it's difficult to do a patent
search and figure out if it's already invented. If you're working on a
machine to make aspirin, it's a safe bet that the patents that cover it
contain the word "aspirin", "analgesic", etc. If you're working on an
authentication system, most anything might be interpreted as authenticating
the user.
For example, there was one argument wherein the patent said "the user's
computer", and the defense had a system wherein the user could use any
computer (and indeed was intended to prove it was the right user at any
arbitrary computer), and the patent holder argued that it was "the user's
computer" due to the fact that it was the computer he was using, even tho
the patent talked about specialized hardware dongles attached to "the user's
computer", and the patent holder wanted "specialized dongle" to be read as
"any password-like mechanism, including passwords". They also argued that
the SSL nonce acted as the dongle. That's the sort of crap that causes
trouble. Maybe there's just more stupid patent trolls in software, or maybe
this crap goes on all the time and I just don't see it since I do software.
Then again, I heard of a very expensive patent case where basically
backoff/retry was patented for a particular yet wide-spread purpose, and the
patent was upheld. Which seems rather wrong to me, as it really was the
obvious way to do it. I think they need a test like taking a random
professional and asking "If you had to solve problem X, how would you solve
it?" And if the person gives the solution in the patent, throw it out.
"If you needed to talk on a communication channel, and you wanted to reduce
interference during collisions, what would you do?" "Well, try, and if you
get a collision, wait a little while and try again." Bzzzt. Throw out the
patent.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> In the European patenting system the principle is that ideas and methods
>>> cannot be patented, only real devices. I think it was like that in the US
>>> as well, a century ago, but it gradually changed.
>
>> Not particularly. The patents cover computers doing certain things.
>
> That's my point: Here ideas and ways of doing things (algorithms) cannot
> be patented. Only real, physical devices (with working prototypes) can be
> patented (at least in principle).
Certainly. I understand what you're saying. I'm saying that people get
around it by patenting "a computing device that computes XYZ using process
PDQ." That's the "design of the device."
It *might* be possible to word thing in a way that makes it impossible to
patent something that can be run on a COTS computer, perhaps, but I don't
see any good way of doing that offhand.
I've also seen patents where they give a mechanical device that does what
you want to patent without even any electricity, and then add "by the way,
it might be possible to build the same machine using computer parts, and the
patent should cover that too." I don't know how you'd avoid such a patent
without also making useless patents on things like a new kind of drug that
gets cooked up in a certain way. You cook it in a round pot, I cook it in a
square pot, so I'm not violating your patent?
> You don't patent what the device *does*,
> you patent the design of the device itself.
So you have no patents on drugs, or on processes for making drugs, or
methods for curing rubber or hardening steel? No patents on constructing
radial tires? On more efficient ways to manufacture paper? Or anti-lock
brakes, or collision preparation systems, which are all computerized and
wouldn't work but for the computer components?
Could you have patented an ink-jet printer in such a way that nobody else
could make an ink-jet printer? Surely the shape of the case or the color of
the ink can't be a determining factor. Can you patent putting a chip in a
cartridge to prevent its refilling?
I'm just saying I think it's a grey area, with a broad range of things that
can be interpreted widely that really shouldn't be, and if you try to
legislate that down, you're going to have trouble with things most people
think should make sense to patent.
> In the US you can get patents for completely ridiculous things.
Agreed. For one thing, the patent examiners are apparently greatly
overworked. Who wants to have both a law degree and an engineering degree,
and work for a government salary?
> If you want the *device* itself patented, check patents 6505576, 6557495,
> 6651591 and 6701872 (all of which patent basically the same thing, even
> though that should be impossible).
The other problem with a lot of patents is they're not "enabling". This
means they don't tell you how to build the actual device. Look at, for
example, the patent on the Segway scooter. It basically says "We patent any
device with two wheels on one axel where the rider's center of weight is
above the wheels." There's no discussion about *how* you make it work.
There's nothing in the patent that you couldn't learn by watching someone
ride a Segway for five seconds. There's no "this is the secret we're
revealing in return for the monopoly on manufacturing this" in the patent.
Another one I saw was a mechanism for making phone calls. The whole thing
was three black boxes: A computer, a device to hook the computer to the
phone, and the phone. It read like a requirements spec, rather than a
finished device. *That* is a bad patent and it *should* be thrown out. I.e.,
in theory that patent is already invalid, not just "the law should be
changed to make it invalid."
Unfortunately, the "loser pays until he wins" crapshoot combined with the
"when in doubt, grant the patent and let the courts fight it out", tend to
be the real problem.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> The other problem with a lot of patents is they're not "enabling". This
> means they don't tell you how to build the actual device.
How about patents which require fictional laws of physics in order to
work? http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6960975.html
This kind of patent would never be granted in Europe (at least in theory)
because of the requirement that a *working* prototype of the device must
exist.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The other problem with a lot of patents is they're not "enabling". This
>> means they don't tell you how to build the actual device.
>
> How about patents which require fictional laws of physics in order to
> work? http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6960975.html
I'm not enough of a physicist to know that's "fictional". It certainly
sounds weird, but then, so does the Casimir effect.
> This kind of patent would never be granted in Europe (at least in theory)
> because of the requirement that a *working* prototype of the device must
> exist.
Is that still a requirement there? Here they dropped that, so you have
people patenting things like genetic crosses between goats and humans that
nobody knows how to actually create, and crap like that.
Even if you have a working prototype, tho, you should still need to reveal
how it works in order to get a patent. That's the point of the patent, after
all.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Or, to put it another way...
>>
>> JPEG, MPEG, and MP3 are all patented. That doesn't stop you from using
>> DFT for other purposes.
But what if I use the DFT to compress an image, but in a slightly
different way to JPEG? Or if I compress the data in exactly the same
way, but format the output file slightly differently? And just how
different does it have to be?
> And (Hi Andrew!) CDMA is patented for cell phones, but maybe not for
> other processes. You could probably use CDMA to deliver cable TV without
> running into the same patents you would using it for cell phones.
Question: If CDMA is patented, how come cell phones exist?
> Now, another problem with "software" patents are that they're hard to
> research.
Well, there is that too.
> Then again, I heard of a very expensive patent case where basically
> backoff/retry was patented for a particular yet wide-spread purpose, and
> the patent was upheld. Which seems rather wrong to me, as it really was
> the obvious way to do it. I think they need a test like taking a random
> professional and asking "If you had to solve problem X, how would you
> solve it?" And if the person gives the solution in the patent, throw it
> out.
I wonder, how well do legal professionals actually understand computers?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> But what if I use the DFT to compress an image, but in a slightly
> different way to JPEG? Or if I compress the data in exactly the same
> way, but format the output file slightly differently? And just how
> different does it have to be?
That's why you read the patent. If you do every clause of one of the claims
of the patent, then you're infringing the patent. Take a look at "claim 1"
of a patent some time.
> Question: If CDMA is patented, how come cell phones exist?
Because the patent owner licenses the patents.
> I wonder, how well do legal professionals actually understand computers?
That's why you need an engineering degree to be a patent officer in the US.
You have basically people who took a bachelor's in computers and a masters
in law, or vice versa.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But what if I use the DFT to compress an image, but in a slightly
>> different way to JPEG? Or if I compress the data in exactly the same
>> way, but format the output file slightly differently? And just how
>> different does it have to be?
>
> That's why you read the patent.
Or, in my case, you just avoid even trying in the first place.
>> Question: If CDMA is patented, how come cell phones exist?
>
> Because the patent owner licenses the patents.
Interesting. I thought the whole point of a patent is to financially
cripple your opponents so you then have the whole market to yourself and
can then charge extortionate prices for a poor quality product...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Interesting. I thought the whole point of a patent is to financially
> cripple your opponents so you then have the whole market to yourself and
> can then charge extortionate prices for a poor quality product...
>
If you want the market to be created, you'll need to sell those
licenses. That's eg. how Sony messed up with Minidisc - they kept MD too
long for just themselves and the prices high, so that CD-R's (and later
MP3 -players) went ahead.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Interesting. I thought the whole point of a patent is to financially
>> cripple your opponents so you then have the whole market to yourself and
>> can then charge extortionate prices for a poor quality product...
>>
>
> If you want the market to be created, you'll need to sell those
> licenses. That's eg. how Sony messed up with Minidisc - they kept MD too
> long for just themselves and the prices high, so that CD-R's (and later
> MP3 -players) went ahead.
Depends on the product. There's only one company that makes Viagra, and
last I heard they're doing pretty damned well...
I would have thought some company would come up with the idea for a
cellphone, patent it, and have the entire world market to themselves,
keeping it too expensive for anybody anywhere to ever use. I'm puzzled
as to how this didn't happen. That's what patents are for, after all.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I would have thought some company would come up with the idea for a
> cellphone, patent it, and have the entire world market to themselves,
Why would you think that didn't happen? Cell phones have been around for 50
years or so.
Patents expire, you know.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/25/09 13:04, Warp wrote:
> How about patents which require fictional laws of physics in order to
> work? http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6960975.html
Made my day.
Am I missing something? I thought for something to be patented, you
need a working model. Did that change? And what would be the rationale
of not requiring it?
--
Marge: "When I married you, I knew we wouldn't live in luxury."
Homer: "And I kept that vow."
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/25/09 15:50, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Because the patent owner licenses the patents.
>
> Interesting. I thought the whole point of a patent is to financially
> cripple your opponents so you then have the whole market to yourself and
> can then charge extortionate prices for a poor quality product...
I assume you're not joking.
The point of a patent is to promote the knowledge of technology. The
government makes you an offer: Make your design public, and they'll give
you exclusive rights to it for a limited time. Sooner or later, the
patent will expire and not be renewed, at which point anyone can make
it. Also, even while the patent is valid, people can view the design of
the product, and it may inspire them to make a totally different product
- thus benefiting (?) society.
The requirement to disclose the design a product may not be amenable to
a company. So sometimes they don't patent it, but maintain it as an
industry secret. I'm told that stuff like the Coca Cola recipe is such
an example.
--
Marge: "When I married you, I knew we wouldn't live in luxury."
Homer: "And I kept that vow."
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I would have thought some company would come up with the idea for a
>> cellphone, patent it, and have the entire world market to themselves,
>
> Why would you think that didn't happen? Cell phones have been around for
> 50 years or so.
>
> Patents expire, you know.
AFAIK, digital technology hasn't been around for 50 years, and an
analogue cell phone wouldn't be much use... I had assumed that's why
they exist now.
(OOC, does anybody know how long electricity has been around? I thought
it was comparatively new.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
