Long overdue, I think.
"...the court upheld the notion that an idea alone can’t be patented, deciding unanimously that merely implementing an idea on a computer isn’t enough to transform it into a patentable invention. Published on the Supreme Court website, the decision does leave room for patenting specific ways of implementing an idea, but it could prevent some of the most frivolous patent cases from moving forward...."
"...The decision is important because many software patent cases are based on ideas rather than implementations..."
Quoted from:
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/supreme-court-deals-major-blow-to-patent-trolls/
Well Darn It! There goes that idea!
The whole pretence that there is some clear difference between ideas and implementations in the context of patents is a ruse to begin with (a prototype is clearly an implementation from an English point of view, but that's never what they mean). Don't get caught up in it, there's no difference. Same as objective tests for obviousness and prior art ... there is no difference there either.
The only way to honestly judge the level of innovation and obviousness in a patent isn't semantic games, it's by asking the subjective opinion of a domain expert (hindsight be damned). No amount of semantic circle jerking will ever change that, which is not to say lawyers will ever find that satisfactory so they'll keep circle jerking. Don't stand in the middle.
The whole pretence that there is some clear difference between ideas and implementations in the context of patents is a ruse to begin with (a prototype is clearly an implementation from an English point of view, but that's never what they mean). Don't get caught up in it, there's no difference. Same as objective tests for obviousness and prior art ... there is no difference there either.
The only way to honestly judge the level of innovation and obviousness in a patent isn't semantic games, it's by asking the subjective opinion of a domain expert (hindsight be damned). No amount of semantic circle jerking will ever change that, which is not to say lawyers will ever find that satisfactory so they'll keep circle jerking. Don't stand in the middle.
I think you may be misusing the term "circle jerk"
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=circle%20jerk&utm_source=search-action
Hmm see if I get it ? Algorithms can no longer be patended ? hmm
I guess it's down to discretion with algorithms maybe?
If you think of an idea, i.e. "I am going to make a super new 2048 bit encryption algorithm" you can't then patent it, but if you say "Here is a computer application that incorporates my newly invented 2048 bit encryption algorithm, also available to purchase as a library" then perhaps you can patent it?
I heard back along that some unsavoury people were taking OSHW projects, changing the look of the thing slightly, re-branding it and trying to claim patent on it, I don't think it's surprising or new, but the laws need to change to stop people doing things like that.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=circle%20jerk&utm_source=search-action
"3.) When a bunch of blowhards - usually politicians - get together for a debate but usually end up agreeing with each other's viewpoints to the point of redundancy, stroking each other's egos as if they were extensions of their genitals (ergo, the mastubatory insinuation). Basically, it's what happens when the choir preaches to itself."
Sounds like patent lawyers trying to define "obviousness" to me.
The whole pretence that there is some clear difference between ideas and implementations in the context of patents is a ruse to begin with (a prototype is clearly an implementation from an English point of view, but that's never what they mean). Don't get caught up in it, there's no difference. Same as objective tests for obviousness and prior art ... there is no difference there either.
Ideas are very different from implementations. People have been able to patent vague outline ideas of doing something, without any meat that says how. Good examples are the vague patents on the general idea that machine vision would be nice. These were used to extort huge amounts from people who really invented useful systems, like barcode readers. Another is the patents on the vague idea of a computer receiving and storing a FAX, which have been used to extort money from people who have actually invented solutions to the various problems of doing that efficiently. Managers and marketers, who come up with outline ideas for products and services, have become the "inventors" under this regime. Actual scientists and engineers just get sued by them. I think it was quite destructive when they removed the need to present working prototypes with patent applications.
The only way to honestly judge the level of innovation and obviousness in a patent isn't semantic games, it's by asking the subjective opinion of a domain expert (hindsight be damned). No amount of semantic circle jerking will ever change that, which is not to say lawyers will ever find that satisfactory so they'll keep circle jerking. Don't stand in the middle.
Hindsight is a huge issue in the assessment of obviousness. Experts are really bad at thinking everything they know is obvious. Sometimes there is an objective measure of non-obviousness - the problem existed for a long time before someone came up with the solution. In most cases its down to the judgement of people who's judgement should not be trusted.
Hindsight is a huge issue in the assessment of obviousness.
Also intractable, because the subjective determination is the only determination possible.
Sometimes there is an objective measure of non-obviousness
Yes, prior art ... which patent lawyers are continually trying to redefine the word obviousness as meaning.
the problem existed for a long time before someone came up with the solution.
Solution? If you won't take my word for there being no solution doesn't the fact that the Supreme Court shot down every "solution" lawyers came up with give some credence to my argument?
In most cases its down to the judgement of people who's judgement should not be trusted.
I thought you said there was a solution? Now you say it doesn't work in most cases? That sounds more like a non solution.
Sometimes there is an objective measure of non-obviousness
Yes, prior art ... which patent lawyers are continually trying to redefine the word obviousness as meaning.
What has prior art to do with obviousness?
the problem existed for a long time before someone came up with the solution.
Solution? If you won't take my word for there being no solution doesn't the fact that the Supreme Court shot down every "solution" lawyers came up with give some credence to my argument?
I mean a patent is clearly not obvious if it documents a solution to a problem which has been around for quite a while unsolved. That should be easy to grasp, but I am amazed how difficult it is for some people. For example, the iphone press and swipe combination to unlock a phone was patented, and many people said it was obvious. Well, if it was obvious how come smartphones for years before has unlock schemes that kept unlocking at random in your pocket, and flattening the battery. The mere fact that the solution took a long time to appear means it wasn't obvious.
What has prior art to do with obviousness?
Well, it has the advantage of being objective ... which is why the teachings BS just tries to redefine obviousness as basically the same thing.
For example, the iphone press and swipe combination to unlock a phone was patented, and many people said it was obvious. Well, if it was obvious how come smartphones for years before has unlock schemes that kept unlocking at random in your pocket, and flattening the battery.
Finger operated touch screens weren't the main UI on those phones. It was on the Neonode though ...
