In this case, the patent is considerably narrower than the headline would leave one to believe.
Even if someone did manage to get a patent granted on something like "bitfields", this would be an annoyance and not a tragedy, as the patent would never hold up-- it would be trivial to produce prior art to invalidate it.
I'm all for discussing patent reform, but it's a lot easier to do in terms of specifics. And, in this case, I don't see anything egregious. At least, not yet.
A (hypothetical) US patent on the Turing Machine would have stopped any attempts to build a mechanical device to Turing's Specifications (like this one: http://aturingmachine.com/index.php) for a period of 20 years.
It wouldn't stop anyone from building a device that is computationally equivalent to a Turing Machine; it wouldn't stop anyone from using the abstract notion of a Turing Machine as an intellectual device.
In short, a patent would have had no practical effect at all.
Now, let's imagine another alternative: one where Turing invented the Turing Machine, but chose not to publish it, as he was afraid of some better-financed competitor learning his "trade secrets" and exploiting the device before he could implement it himself. Where would we be then?
Patents are a trade-off. The inventor gets a monopoly for a limited period of time, in exchange for the idea being passed into the public domain after the monopoly expires. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it's not easy to dismiss out of hand.
I don't know--Alonzo Church might have a claim, but a digital computer made by anyone else is obviously derivative and covered by a well-written patent claim.
Comments
Isn't that what we all do, every day?
That was sort of the point ;)
By making it so broad you could theoretically sue any company.
...and lose, badly, when they provide "prior art".
Just because you are awarded a patent doesn't mean it's enforceable. Over-broad patents get challenged, and struck down.
I think you should probably read the rest of the thread.
I have.
In this case, the patent is considerably narrower than the headline would leave one to believe.
Even if someone did manage to get a patent granted on something like "bitfields", this would be an annoyance and not a tragedy, as the patent would never hold up-- it would be trivial to produce prior art to invalidate it.
I'm all for discussing patent reform, but it's a lot easier to do in terms of specifics. And, in this case, I don't see anything egregious. At least, not yet.
And if you could sue based on the title of your patent, that might mean something.
Hrm.
I think I should submit an application for "Method for mechanically solving all problems which are in principle computable."
Actually, that's a really good point.
What if Alan Turing had patented the 'Turing Machine', would we be where we are today in computing or would we be stuck somewhere in the 70's?
I vote for "where we are today."
A (hypothetical) US patent on the Turing Machine would have stopped any attempts to build a mechanical device to Turing's Specifications (like this one: http://aturingmachine.com/index.php) for a period of 20 years.
It wouldn't stop anyone from building a device that is computationally equivalent to a Turing Machine; it wouldn't stop anyone from using the abstract notion of a Turing Machine as an intellectual device.
In short, a patent would have had no practical effect at all.
Now, let's imagine another alternative: one where Turing invented the Turing Machine, but chose not to publish it, as he was afraid of some better-financed competitor learning his "trade secrets" and exploiting the device before he could implement it himself. Where would we be then?
Patents are a trade-off. The inventor gets a monopoly for a limited period of time, in exchange for the idea being passed into the public domain after the monopoly expires. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it's not easy to dismiss out of hand.
I don't know--Alonzo Church might have a claim, but a digital computer made by anyone else is obviously derivative and covered by a well-written patent claim.
Actually, we're not even as far as we got in the 70's in research labs. (Mainstream-wise)