41–50 of 60 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All software patents are patents on complicated math.
From what I've seen software patents seems to be mostly trivial math.
Unless you are a patent lawyer/expert specifically in someone's employ, pointing out that in your layman's opinion that "something appears to be patented" isn't doing anyone any favors, and may in fact be harming them. Patents use their own specific, strange language. The claims, as modified by other precedents, only apply in certain specific situations which may be different than what a casual reading would imply. A…
The fact that it takes a lawyer to even guess whether a patent applies, and that the typical strategy is to keep a low profile and hope nobody notices, is itself a serious flaw in the patent system. Any system in which it's impossible to predict ahead of time what is safe or legal is broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding patents, people always complain a particular patent couldn't have been granted because it's not novel enough, anyone could have thought it, or that it's math. Patent law is a black-on-white subject, either you support it or not. It's impossible to grant some patents under subjective premises and be fair at the same time.
> It's impossible to grant some patents under subjective premises and be fair at the same time. Is that not the job of patent examiners?
The idea behind patents is protecting the innovator. How does patent law protect anyone when it's trivial to argue a patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place (because it's not novel, or it's just math, blah blah)? You could say that about all patents ever filled.
It defeats the whole purpose behind patents. Whoever has the biggest patent pool and deepest pocket wins, not the little guy on the sweatshop. The only people to benefit from patents are lawyers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you see how complex the data structure actually is? If I had to choose between implementing a Judy array and implementing JPEG, I'd much rather try to write the JPEG code. Patenting a data structure sounds ridiculous, but it's a little less ridiculous once you consider how complex the underlying algorithms actually are.
So is JPEG's complexity the cutoff for you? What do you think of the LZW patents then? LZW is simple as hell.
JPEG met the novelty, non-obviousness, and usefulness tests, as did LZW. That they're considered nearly trivial these days is because they were such influential algorithms that they've become part of the programming canon.
That said, please don't represent my stance as a matter of a cutoff. Many things in this world, including the question of patentability, are fuzzy distinctions that require some subjective "good judgement." Common law legal systems are bad at handling this, which is partly why judicial philosophy is so complex.
If I oppose patenting an algorithm/data structure, it's because I don't think patent protection is necessary in order for people to push the state of the art forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's impossible to grant some patents under subjective premises and be fair at the same time. Is that not the job of patent examiners?
Blaming it on the examiner is not the point. The idea behind patents is protecting the innovator. How does patent law protect anyone when it's trivial to argue a patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place (because it's not novel, or it's just math, blah blah)? You could say that about all patents ever filled. It defeats the whole purpose behind patents. Whoever has the biggest patent pool and deepest pocke…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So is JPEG's complexity the cutoff for you? What do you think of the LZW patents then? LZW is simple as hell.
To be completely honest, I'm not sure where I stand because it's a very complex issue. JPEG met the novelty, non-obviousness, and usefulness tests, as did LZW. That they're considered nearly trivial these days is because they were such influential algorithms that they've become part of the programming canon. That said, please don't represent my stance as a matter of a cutoff. Many things in this world, including the…
It is considered trivial because it is trivial: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/LZW_compression#Clojure
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you see how complex the data structure actually is? If I had to choose between implementing a Judy array and implementing JPEG, I'd much rather try to write the JPEG code. Patenting a data structure sounds ridiculous, but it's a little less ridiculous once you consider how complex the underlying algorithms actually are.
So... I can patent complicated math? This is essentially what you are saying, right?
JPEG was patented. I can understand why. It was novel, it was not obvious, and it was useful. That trio makes a pretty good case for patentability, ignoring whether algorithms can/should be patented in general.
From what I've read, Judy arrays are novel, not obvious (moreso than JPEG, in my subjective opinion), and useful. So it doesn't seem far fetched to patent Judy arrays, ignoring whether algorithms can/should be patented in general.
Which is why I said "a little less ridiculous". This has nothing to do with complicated math, even though both data structures/algorithms involve complicated math.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All software patents are patents on complicated math.
From what I've seen software patents seems to be mostly trivial math.
JPEG and wavelet compression in practice is surprisingly simple math. But the theory that explains why and how it works is far from trivial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be completely honest, I'm not sure where I stand because it's a very complex issue. JPEG met the novelty, non-obviousness, and usefulness tests, as did LZW. That they're considered nearly trivial these days is because they were such influential algorithms that they've become part of the programming canon. That said, please don't represent my stance as a matter of a cutoff. Many things in this world, including the…
LZW isn't considered trivial because it has "become part of programming canon" . It is considered trivial because it is trivial: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/LZW_compression#Clojure
If it were trivial when the patentability question came up, it wouldn't have been a published paper in the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory and an active area of publication for at least the next six years.
Whether or not it's trivial today, this was the cutting edge of computer science when the patent was granted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LZW isn't considered trivial because it has "become part of programming canon" . It is considered trivial because it is trivial: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/LZW_compression#Clojure
You're calling it trivial with over 30 years of advancements in computer science behind you. Also, thanks for picking the shortest sample on the page to show that it's trivial. If it were trivial when the patentability question came up, it wouldn't have been a published paper in the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory and an active area of publication for at least the next six years. Whether or not it's trivial t…
Seriously, read that.
You're calling it trivial with over 30 years of advancements in computer science behind you.
Yes, of course I fucking can. The ability to do that is part of what makes a "person having ordinary skill in the art" an important concept. Even 30 years ago LZW represented an incremental improvement on the current state of the art.
Regardless of the novelty of the idea, LZW has always been trivial to implement.
> it wouldn't have been a published paper in the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory and an active area of publication for at least the next six years.
I am not arguing that it fails the usefulness test, nor that it was not important.
Your "this looks like a pain in the ass to implement" defense of the patent is absurd. You clearly would support the patent regardless, since you seem to be fine with the LZW patents.