This is so completely absurd I'm almost speechless. You have so completely missed how the world works I can't even fathom it. The more arguments I read, the more delusional people sound.
People are not getting patents for some sequence of calculations, they're getting patents for producing a useful, new effect on the world. Yes all computers are universal in what they can compute, but I see no reason why coming up with a new, greatly improved and economically useful way of using such a restricted machine should not be patentable.
Furthermore, people seem to think that just because a computer program can be described as a sequence of mathematical steps that it is therefore a mathematical algorithm and shouldn't be patentable. Algorithms have no effect on the world, they do not improve anything in a tangible way, but software absolutely does (and it's why you can read this now!) and it is the processes that lead to producing these useful effects that is patentable. I can't patent an algorithm without specifying why it is useful to the population at large.
Finally, people seem to have got the bizarre notion that there are patents claiming computers which are capable of performing a certain task, which is just absurd and untrue. The claims are usually directed to a system which actually does perform the steps in the process, not one which is capable of it (therefore allowing them to exclude competitors who make their own implementation of some software process that has been patented and attempt to make money from it).
"
People are not getting patents for some sequence of calculations, they're getting patents for producing a useful, new effect on the world. Yes all computers are universal in what they can compute, but I see no reason why coming up with a new, greatly improved and economically useful way of using such a restricted machine should not be patentable."
I think you missed the point, actually.
They have argued, and precedent until yesterday was:
It is patentable because it is implemented on a computer, because it "transforms the computer" into a "specific device". IE that the computer, programmed, makes something unpatentable, patentable.
"Finally, people seem to have got the bizarre notion that there are patents claiming computers which are capable of performing a certain task, which is just absurd and untrue. "
As a patent attorney, having fought software patents for many many years now, i'm just going to say this is completely and totally false. People patent both computers capable of things, and computer implemented inventions. To think otherwise just means you've not read enough patents :)
It's one thing to patent a specific arrangement of a spring, board, and wire to build a mouse trap it's another to patent ALL arrangements of a springs, boards, and or wire to build any device that can possibly trap a mouse. The first is an invention the second is the abstract idea of a mouse trap.
The problem is software patents have long used the second approach. Rather than patenting a process they attempt to patent the result. And this is where the fundamental difference between software and physical reality shows up. If your building something then 'optimal' solutions are great, but if your building software anything that works is probably good enough.
"
People are not getting patents for some sequence of calculations, they're getting patents for producing a useful, new effect on the world. Yes all computers are universal in what they can compute, but I see no reason why coming up with a new, greatly improved and economically useful way of using such a restricted machine should not be patentable."
I think you missed the point, actually.
They have argued, and precedent until yesterday was:
It is patentable because it is implemented on a computer, because it "transforms the computer" into a "specific device". IE that the computer, programmed, makes something unpatentable, patentable.
"Finally, people seem to have got the bizarre notion that there are patents claiming computers which are capable of performing a certain task, which is just absurd and untrue. "
As a patent attorney, having fought software patents for many many years now, i'm just going to say this is completely and totally false.
Comments
This is so completely absurd I'm almost speechless. You have so completely missed how the world works I can't even fathom it. The more arguments I read, the more delusional people sound.
People are not getting patents for some sequence of calculations, they're getting patents for producing a useful, new effect on the world. Yes all computers are universal in what they can compute, but I see no reason why coming up with a new, greatly improved and economically useful way of using such a restricted machine should not be patentable.
Furthermore, people seem to think that just because a computer program can be described as a sequence of mathematical steps that it is therefore a mathematical algorithm and shouldn't be patentable. Algorithms have no effect on the world, they do not improve anything in a tangible way, but software absolutely does (and it's why you can read this now!) and it is the processes that lead to producing these useful effects that is patentable. I can't patent an algorithm without specifying why it is useful to the population at large.
Finally, people seem to have got the bizarre notion that there are patents claiming computers which are capable of performing a certain task, which is just absurd and untrue. The claims are usually directed to a system which actually does perform the steps in the process, not one which is capable of it (therefore allowing them to exclude competitors who make their own implementation of some software process that has been patented and attempt to make money from it).
" People are not getting patents for some sequence of calculations, they're getting patents for producing a useful, new effect on the world. Yes all computers are universal in what they can compute, but I see no reason why coming up with a new, greatly improved and economically useful way of using such a restricted machine should not be patentable."
I think you missed the point, actually.
They have argued, and precedent until yesterday was: It is patentable because it is implemented on a computer, because it "transforms the computer" into a "specific device". IE that the computer, programmed, makes something unpatentable, patentable.
"Finally, people seem to have got the bizarre notion that there are patents claiming computers which are capable of performing a certain task, which is just absurd and untrue. "
As a patent attorney, having fought software patents for many many years now, i'm just going to say this is completely and totally false. People patent both computers capable of things, and computer implemented inventions. To think otherwise just means you've not read enough patents :)
It's one thing to patent a specific arrangement of a spring, board, and wire to build a mouse trap it's another to patent ALL arrangements of a springs, boards, and or wire to build any device that can possibly trap a mouse. The first is an invention the second is the abstract idea of a mouse trap.
The problem is software patents have long used the second approach. Rather than patenting a process they attempt to patent the result. And this is where the fundamental difference between software and physical reality shows up. If your building something then 'optimal' solutions are great, but if your building software anything that works is probably good enough.
" People are not getting patents for some sequence of calculations, they're getting patents for producing a useful, new effect on the world. Yes all computers are universal in what they can compute, but I see no reason why coming up with a new, greatly improved and economically useful way of using such a restricted machine should not be patentable."
I think you missed the point, actually.
They have argued, and precedent until yesterday was: It is patentable because it is implemented on a computer, because it "transforms the computer" into a "specific device". IE that the computer, programmed, makes something unpatentable, patentable.
"Finally, people seem to have got the bizarre notion that there are patents claiming computers which are capable of performing a certain task, which is just absurd and untrue. "
As a patent attorney, having fought software patents for many many years now, i'm just going to say this is completely and totally false.