On 5/31/07, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 11:57 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote: > J. Andrew Rogers wrote: >> All patents are ideas and algorithms. > > Not quite. Would you patent the quadratic equation? How about > Newtonian approximation? Means of computing logarithms? The nice thing about algorithms is that there are so many of them. One of the disingenuous arguments against algorithm patents is that it prevents people from doing things. That is patently false.
Actually patents are commonly filed to be as broad as possible. So a very specific way of doing X will be filed as a patent on X. Also some things are so obvious that they are very likely to be invented over and over again. The 1-Click patent held by Amazon is a good case in point. Why should everyone have to license or not use something so obvious? All
algorithm patents do is, at worst, make you use an older and less efficient algorithm to accomplish the exact same thing or expend the effort to invent your own version.
"All"? Than is certainly not "all". If any average person can churn
out fantastic new algorithms with only nominal effort then it means that virtually everyone in the software industry is a bloody imbecile because virtually no one does it. Yes, there are a lot of frivolous patents (of all types), but there are also non-frivolous ones (of all types) -- a separate issue.
There is also the small matter of prior art. I did a LOT of work in distributed objects and object persistence in the mid 80s. But at the time software patents were just not done, at least not by my company. About eight years ago I looked up patents in this area to see that Sun and IBM had a number in these areas that my work in the 80s certainly was relevant to and much earlier. But since the company and I did not keep sufficient records and since I cannot afford to challenge them myself the current practice would restrict me in some cases from using what I myself invented long ago. That is not healthy.
Patents are meant to spread the fruit of innovation while > encouraging more innovation. Software patents quite arguably fail > at both. Nothing in this assertion is not equally applicable to *all* patents. Most non-software patents are frivolous, so an argument on that basis would be pretty irrelevant. As I originally stated, I'm looking for consistency and nothing more. Any defense of non- software patents is equally applicable to software patents, potential ignorance of that fact notwithstanding.
I do not agree that all patentable things are equal. I believe that software algorithms are much more fine grained and inter-related and independently discoverable than say newly machine inventions.
A better question is this: what new applications are magically enabled by a new algorithm, and if the effort is so trivial why haven't you developed these algorithms?
Triviality is not remotely the only argument against software patents. - samantha ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
