Patents make sense only when R&D is very
expensive/difficult and copying (stealing) the
finished idea is much easier.
So software patents make almost no sense.
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/against-software-patents.html
You can see this by looking at the software patents
issued by the USPTO. At least 99.9% of them have
nothing new or unobvious in them.
Here's my question.
Is it different in other fields (arts)?
That is, in other fields, do you ever
read a published patent and think:
"This is a great idea.
I see that such a great idea could have come
only from expensive/difficult R&D."
This never happens when you read a software patent,
but I can imagine that this might happen with
R&D of new drugs, for example.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Patents make sense only when R&D is very
expensive/difficult and copying (stealing) the
finished idea is much easier.
So software patents make almost no sense.
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/against-software-patents.html

You can see this by looking at the software patents
issued by the USPTO. At least 99.9% of them have
nothing new or unobvious in them.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:25:13 -0700 (PDT), John Riley
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[> wrote:
It's hard to imagine something with a lower cost for copying than
software. So even if the costs of software R&D are lower than for
other technologies, your argument does not present a convincing case
that softare patents don't make sense.

I don't buy it. I'm sure there are some bad software patents, but
I'd need to see a convincing study before I'd believe that only 1 in
1000 software patents cover things that are non novel or are obvious.
Isaac

"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in
good point, a drug would have its own time of being free from being copied
until
the method is reverse systhesised, a computer program can be copied
by anyone and needs protection for investment in innovation.
why is making a new chemical an invention, there's a finite number of them
and they'll all be made eventually, chemists just stumble upon them, software
engineers spend years in study of things none of which are even tangible.

genuine inventive step would be rarer with software as anyone can learn to
program, so 1 in 1000 would be on target, you just need a professional systems
analyst to recognise the redundancy.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:36:53 +1000, |-|erc
<usemyonlineform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote:
There are a finite number of sands on Pensacola Beach. The number of
electrons in the universe is finite.
I guess it's also worth noting that simply making a chemical which has
no use isn't a patentable invention.

99.9% was just a number pulled out of a hat. Just saying that invention is
hard to accomplish in a field says nothing about what per centage of the patents
in that field are actually valid. If there are lots of artisans in a
field, then even a low invention rate will turn up lots of new things.
If there's a case to be made here, your argument falls way short.

"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote
Patent : method of manufacture, inventive step, reasonable application
It was a qualitative argument. None of you have seen a computer program,

the programs you run are written by teenagers

them semi functional.

of computer scientists

is public key encryption, a few cents goes to the number theorists .

"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote
It was a qualitative argument. None of you have seen a computer program,
most of the programs you run are written by teenagers its only mass
trial and error that makes

What a curious statement to make about a group of people you do not know.

And demonstrably untrue - I wrote my first computer program in 1967, got
an undergraduate degree in Industrial Engineering in 1974 (the only way
to get a degree from Cornell in computer science/data processing back
then), and did systems analysis and programming professionally before I
went to law school. Before I switched to law, I had learned and used
over 25 computer languages. I continued to write programs after I became
a lawyer, for that matter. For years our office used word processing,
forms control and billing systems I wrote from scratch. It wouldn't
surprise me in the least to find others in this group who are equally
experienced.
--
Michael F. Brown
Registered Patent Attorney No. 29,619
http://www.bpmlegal.com/

As for me, I've also more than seen computer programs ...

computer science related patents (8 US 1 EPO). Have taught computer
graphics, web programming and JAVA at college level.

Mike Brown <brown@bpmlegal.com> wrote in article
<3f999337$1@news2.lightlink.com>...
... None of you have seen a computer program, ... What a curious
statement to make about a group of people you do not know.
As for me, I've also more than seen computer programs ...
CS EDUCATION START: Been programming since 1967 in high school also
(Fortran and assembler on IBM 1130 with 8K core storage and punch cards
for I/O). THROUGH: Spent 3 semesters in PhD program in Computer Science
at Courant Institute, NYU (continue PhD at Columbia in AI and CogPsi).
DURING: Programmed in about a dozen languages, wrote thousands of
programs, and a score of large systems. Worked as CS research scientist
at two academic laboratories (NYIT and NYU); and as systems/software
engineer for three years. Have won awards for computer animation
(programmed type in 1979) and exhibited as computer artist (also
programmed not computer painted). Published several papers on my
computer graphics work. Hold 9 computer science related patents (8 US 1
EPO). Have taught computer graphics, web programming and JAVA at
college level.
-- dmg
David M. Geshwind
Registered Patent Agent

"David M. Geshwind" <acaesqFILTER@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:01c39aa9$ffd7f740$15f0c043@default:
I think software patents make a great deal of sense because software has
replaced hardware in so many places. It shouldn't make a difference to
patent protection as to whether a software or hardware implementation is
followed.
I have no great programming credentials, but even I can hack together a
few lines of code if I have to. Most people with any kind of technical
education can do so.

If software is patentable, so patentable are our ideas expressed by that
executable source code, patentable are our thoughts.
Going one step further, perpetual motion machines are not patentable,
but the idea of a perpetual motion machine, expressed in the form of a
executable source code and/or block diagram of an algorithms could now
be patentable.
Building perpetual motion machine is mayby against the state-of-the-art
in science, but theory on why a supposed perpetual motion machine can't
work, expressed in the form of an executable source code is a science,
so that source code and algorithm could now be patentable.

Does it mean, that ideas are patentable ?

exactly
ideas recorded on tangible media are nowadays patentable.

So software patents make almost no sense.
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/against-software-patents.html

Jack wrote:
Why would someone waste thousands of dollars on getting a patent to keep
others from building, selling or using something that does not, and can
not work
Means only they can't make a "program" that describes the worthless
invention idea,, it does not protect that invention from being built,
SOLD, OR USED
GREAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AS ALWAYS JACK

David M. Geshwind wrote:
. Published several papers on my computer graphics work. Hold 9
HAy David, could you give Jack a hand there,, he seams to believe that
you never get a program completed enough to get a patent on it, due to
constant up grading :-)

Rodney <rod@ezknotns.com> wrote in article
<vpjtbr58k3ga6a@corp.supernews.com>...
Rod (& Jack):
While I know you're kidding -- and I long ago stopped paying attention to
much of what's going on in this group ...

Yes, virtually everything I have patented can be embodied as a computer
program. I first generically claim the method or process (or, algorithm, if
you will) and this can be embodied as a computer running a program, special
purpose hardware, or by any means. Often, other dependent claims cover the
general method carried out on a computer; or, the steps of the
method/process/algorithm embodied as a computer program recorded on
machine-readable medium.
Although the term is relatively short, the patent covers ANY cmoputer
program that carries out the steps, so reverse-engineering or copyright is
not an issue.

specific program code, but others can recode the method in their own
programs.

to return to your point, the computer program (doce) does not have to be in
final form (or even written at all) in order to write the patent
specification or apply for paten (or, even get the patent) so long as the
method, process, or algorithm is adequately described and depicted in one
or more flow diagrams.