Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#21

Post by Crito »

josaka wrote: post #18
Crito wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best comparison to patenting shit like that which I have thought of is an author trying to patent "novel" grammatical constructs in English. Even if it is genuinely novel (unlikely) and a non-obvious innovation (also unlikely), is that really something that we should consider patentable?

I suspect novel grammatical constructs in English would fail part one of the patent-eligibility test: does the idea fall within one of the four permissible classes, those being process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html . If it was deemed to fall within one of those categories, then it'd still have to qualify as either being non-abstract or, if ab…

I am not talking about the current state of patent law in the US. I am talking about the patentability of software in general. Not as the US implements it, but as it could ever be implemented, by anyone.

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#22

Post by lostcolony »

sitkack wrote: post #19
aetherson wrote: post #16

Slide-to-unlock was probably a pretty important, cool idea for whoever first invented it (not Apple -- though maybe they reinvented it from scratch). It's one of those things that's obvious in retrospect but difficult to necessarily think of when you're starting from a white page. But not all important, cool ideas are patentable -- nor should they be. Patents are meant to reward research, not "good ideas."

You mean like a 3$ gate latch?

Exactly. The latches on a briefcase. This is atextbook patent for 'a common real world thing, "But on a computer"'

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#23

Post by upbeat_addict »

sitkack wrote: post #19
aetherson wrote: post #16

Slide-to-unlock was probably a pretty important, cool idea for whoever first invented it (not Apple -- though maybe they reinvented it from scratch). It's one of those things that's obvious in retrospect but difficult to necessarily think of when you're starting from a white page. But not all important, cool ideas are patentable -- nor should they be. Patents are meant to reward research, not "good ideas."

You mean like a 3$ gate latch?

it's always reminded me of an apt door chain lock.

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#24

Post by andybak »

radicalbyte wrote: post #7
mratzloff wrote: post #5

> [A] computer process that enables a single machine to distribute a single information identifier and provide that to multiple “rules of thumb” so that each “rule of thumb” can search different locations using different criteria designed for that location is a major innovation in computer science; it improves the speed and efficiency of the computer and generates more useful results. It is not an abstract idea. Than…

That's insane, I implemented something similar 12 years ago, a massive hack-up involving Excel, MS Access and PHP. If a clueless (in hindsight; I thought I was God's gift back then, a super VBA ninja) kid can "invent" something, then it's the textbook definition of "obvious". EDIT: their patent predates this. if someone somewhere is unlucky enough to still be using my fantastic invention, now might be a good time to…

This is the part of the software patent I've never understood. Surely if the standard of "non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art" was applied sensibly then most of the more absurd patents wouldn't be granted.

Of course there is the 'obvious in hindsight' problem but this test has been weakened beyond all recognition.

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#25

Post by revelation »

andybak wrote: post #24
radicalbyte wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's insane, I implemented something similar 12 years ago, a massive hack-up involving Excel, MS Access and PHP. If a clueless (in hindsight; I thought I was God's gift back then, a super VBA ninja) kid can "invent" something, then it's the textbook definition of "obvious". EDIT: their patent predates this. if someone somewhere is unlucky enough to still be using my fantastic invention, now might be a good time to…

This is the part of the software patent I've never understood. Surely if the standard of "non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art" was applied sensibly then most of the more absurd patents wouldn't be granted. Of course there is the 'obvious in hindsight' problem but this test has been weakened beyond all recognition.

We don't even need to look to that subjective standard. We grant people exclusive rights or patents for sharing novel techniques with other people skilled in the art, yet I have never seen a professional software programmer look to patents for information or algorithms. It just doesn't happen.

So the tradeoff here is exclusive rights for zero public benefits. That is not the way it was intended.

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#26

Post by AnthonyMouse »

josaka wrote: post #18
Crito wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best comparison to patenting shit like that which I have thought of is an author trying to patent "novel" grammatical constructs in English. Even if it is genuinely novel (unlikely) and a non-obvious innovation (also unlikely), is that really something that we should consider patentable?

I suspect novel grammatical constructs in English would fail part one of the patent-eligibility test: does the idea fall within one of the four permissible classes, those being process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html . If it was deemed to fall within one of those categories, then it'd still have to qualify as either being non-abstract or, if ab…

> does the idea fall within one of the four permissible classes, those being process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.

It would be a process in exactly the way that software is. Obviously the process can be carried out by a human (as can software), but never mind that, we'll just tack on a prior art typewriter or computer input device to make it a machine, right?

This whole mess is a result of the Federal Circuit reading everything too broadly. "Process" traditionally meant a manufacturing process or the like. If I'm not mistaken the only "software" patent the Supreme Court has found valid covered a manufacturing process.

And that's where software patents should live, if anywhere. Covering novel machines that happen to require some computation rather than novel computations that happen to be done by a machine.

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#27

Post by Natsu »

andybak wrote: post #24
radicalbyte wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's insane, I implemented something similar 12 years ago, a massive hack-up involving Excel, MS Access and PHP. If a clueless (in hindsight; I thought I was God's gift back then, a super VBA ninja) kid can "invent" something, then it's the textbook definition of "obvious". EDIT: their patent predates this. if someone somewhere is unlucky enough to still be using my fantastic invention, now might be a good time to…

This is the part of the software patent I've never understood. Surely if the standard of "non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art" was applied sensibly then most of the more absurd patents wouldn't be granted. Of course there is the 'obvious in hindsight' problem but this test has been weakened beyond all recognition.

Yeah, one would think that a widely infringed patent was a good signal that it was already obvious to those skilled in the art, but the patent bar seems to have this fantasy where people are reading patents and cackling gleefully stealing all the ideas from them. So they see it more as "massive business opportunity" than a signal that the system is not providing the alleged benefit to the public.

And to be honest, from those I've discussed it with, they are largely concerned with monetization and don't give a damn about any sort of public benefit.

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#28

Post by ScottBurson »

revelation wrote: post #25
andybak wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the part of the software patent I've never understood. Surely if the standard of "non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art" was applied sensibly then most of the more absurd patents wouldn't be granted. Of course there is the 'obvious in hindsight' problem but this test has been weakened beyond all recognition.

We don't even need to look to that subjective standard. We grant people exclusive rights or patents for sharing novel techniques with other people skilled in the art, yet I have never seen a professional software programmer look to patents for information or algorithms. It just doesn't happen. So the tradeoff here is exclusive rights for zero public benefits. That is not the way it was intended.

You wouldn't necessarily read the actual patent, but it could happen that you read a conference paper, or attend the presentation, and then learn that the technique described in it is the subject of a patent application. The paper will still be a better source of information than the patent.

I don't know how often this happens, but I have seen it.

Re: Supreme Court’s new rules on abstract patents hit Apple v. Samsung

#30

Post by throwawaykf05 »

Misleading headline, but on par for Ars reporting on patents. It makes it sound like Apple has been negatively affected due to the Alice ruling, whereas all that has happened is Samsung has made a new argument that they should be. There has been no response from the Judge yet.
Post reply on HN