Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JimIvey]

If the Egyptians had patented the alphabet in or about 1700BC, we might have to pay $1 for the use of each letter and $2 for the use of each vowel.  Oh my gosh!

http://asia.cnet.com/news/editorialdesk/0,39036700,39224138,00.htm
[TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/6w8fz]

First, I'll try to ignore the obvious oversight that vowels are letters, so I'm not sure if I pay $3 for each vowel (being both a letter and a vowel) or only $2.

The bottom line is that, under current patent law (pretty much anywhere in the world today), anything invented in 1700 BC would have lost any patent protection and fallen into the public domain by about 1680 BC.  So, type away, use all the letters you like, free of charge!

Comments?  Other myths?  How 'bout the one that only one out of every trillion patents is worth any money?

Regards.

[JSonnabend]

Jim, the problem with software patents is not the subject matter itself, but the apparent failure of the PTO to properly apply 102 and 103 standards to them.  Any field of technology will be hampered by patents covering obvious "inventions" being issued in large numbers.

Ask any software guy if he thinks a software algorithm that delivers 95% lossless compression ratios on random data is worthy of protection.  He'll immediately tell you it can't be done, and so if it ever is, it should be protected by patent.  Disclose the novel methodology and advance the state of the art, etc.

But then again, I would be classified as a patent "parasite", according to one comment following the article.

[JimIvey]

Jim, the problem with software patents is not the subject matter itself, but the apparent failure of the PTO to properly apply 102 and 103 standards to them.  Any field of technology will be hampered by patents covering obvious "inventions" being issued in large numbers.

Right.  That's not a problem with software patents as much as a problem with any technology reflected in patent applications of such numbers as to overwhelm any technology center of the Patent Office.  

And, I can't say that "patents covering obvious 'inventions' [are] being issued in large numbers."  Most of the reports of such wildly obvious issued patents are wildly incorrect -- one of my favorites was Greg Aharonian pointing out that an issued claim had a very broad clause.  My response that "a broad clause does not a broad claim make" sparked no counter response from Mr. A.  In a separate instance, one of my patents that was being litigated was slashdotted.  I didn't post a comment because I didn't want to comment on the specifics of a patent in litigation, but I wanted to post "RTFP."  For those who don't recognize that acronym, look up "RTFM" (and "P" is for patent).

I'd suggest reading articles proclaiming that "the sky is falling!" with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Regards.

[DavidStein]

But then again, I would be classified as a patent "parasite", according to one comment following the article.

Heh. I once made a mistake of standing up for software patents in the comments section of a Slashdot article - analogizing to the early days of biotech patent practice, noting the increasing sophistication of USPTO examination, etc. This prompted three results:

I was pleasantly surprised to receive a few very insightful and well-informed comments opposing software patents.

I was completely unsurprised to receive quite a lot of brief, uninformed, acerbic responses about the field and/or our profession.

And I was somewhat surprised to see my detailed, academic post modded down to a rating of "-3 (troll)".

A common view of Slashdot's score-based comments section is that it does not promote insightful comments - it promotes groupthink. I think I must wholly accept that assertion.

Sincerely,

David Stein, Esq.

[Isaac]

I wouldn't be to disappointed with the scoring of a post on
slashdot.  A typical discussion on slashdot of software patenting
begins with an article giving the title of patent, followed
by a 1000 posts asking how the PTO could have allowed Microsoft
to patent right clicking.  A few people point out that the
claims actually describe something far narrower and likely
non obvious and novel, but those posts are quickly moderated down
to negative googol so they don't interfere with the spread of fear,
uncertainty and doubt.

I often enjoy reading slashdot, but I don't expect a very high
level of discussion on certain topics.