PDA

View Full Version : Software patents killed in the US


Per-Anders
10-31-2008, 05:34 PM
Two takes on the news

http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&id=369

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081030150903555

cheebamonkey
10-31-2008, 05:42 PM
darn... poor Apple and their millions of patents they file every year just got slapped around. Shucks. :buttrock:

RobertoOrtiz
10-31-2008, 05:45 PM
WOW..

This is huge.

Great find man.


More sources:

Patent ruling good or bad for tech?
Now that the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that abstract processes, or business methods, cannot be patented (http://news.cnet.com/U.S.-ruling-may-curb-business-method-patents/2100-1014_3-6247408.html), it's important to look at how this could affect the tech industry.

The case in question was rejected because the patent at issue was a process not tied to a "machine," which is one standard for patentability.

Overall, it seems like a ruling that should favor companies that make hardware and software because while it narrows the types of patents that can be filed (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9939515-7.html), in return should protect them from the frivolous patent suits that have flooded the industry in the past few years.

LINK (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10079859-38.html)

and

http://www.businessweek.com/careers/managementiq/archives/2008/10/federal_court_r.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis


-R

PiotrekM
10-31-2008, 06:03 PM
does that mean that all Pixar patents are not valid right now ?

blaize
10-31-2008, 06:15 PM
this doesnt seem to affect really important stuff, it just makes sure company's cant patent small stupid stuff like the 'page down' button :p
things like big algorithms can still be patented.

sheban
10-31-2008, 06:21 PM
hold on to your champaign cork - this only affects business model patents (which obviously should not be patentable since it obviously goes against a market economy). software algorithm patents are alive and well as far as i can tell.

ambient-whisper
10-31-2008, 07:02 PM
so no more stupid suing over ideas like the wii controler, or the rumble pack i take it?!

but those cases were always so fun to read about. :/

L.Rawlins
10-31-2008, 07:13 PM
Dual Shock 4... It lives! It lives I tell thee! :D

FXA2008
10-31-2008, 08:34 PM
g˘gogogo spam chơi

ThomasMahler
10-31-2008, 08:47 PM
So, let's talk straight here: Does that mean that Autodesk's patents for marking menus are basically worthless now?

In any case, since Autodesk owns Softimage now, they could actually implement marking menus themselves without a hitch! Yay! That's what I want for 3ds Max and XSI - Marking Menus for everyone!

Frank Lake
10-31-2008, 10:01 PM
does that mean that all Pixar patents are not valid right now ?

Actually what it means is that no software patent is legal IF it's patented as a software currently. However software can still be patented if they phrase the patent per the Supreme Court's rules on what a patent can be judged by. ;)

Great for Open Source, but pretty bad for those Low End Programmers who live & die by the sales margin. :wise:

Apoclypse
10-31-2008, 11:00 PM
OMG! This is freaking incredible. No more stupid patents on ideas just algorithms. This is brilliant. Ladies and Gentleman the U.S. has finally arrived to the 21st century.

rock
11-01-2008, 02:49 AM
I think things like Autodesk or Alias marking menu or Amazon single-click and DoubleClick's double click should not be allowed to be patented. Because if not, someone will beat me to the triple mouse clicks.

Syndicate
11-01-2008, 12:27 PM
I expect Blender3D to pick up on this very soon :)

Windwolf
11-01-2008, 07:51 PM
maybe that is the good news, after AutoDesk bought SoftImage.. :)

We, the users now have the final laugh !!

now the programmers can come out and write us some really good 21st Century software, without worry being sued. And we can choose the tools we use, base on how good the tools are, rather than who got more money to buy those stupid pattens !!

Yea !!

ngrava
11-02-2008, 01:18 AM
The title of this thread is totally misleading and simply wrong. You guy need to read the article. It doesn't say anything about invalidating software patents. The ruling is just meant to reduce the number of "Frivolous" Patents that try and protect things like business processes and detached concepts. Nothing about software in specific. Things that are real and defined (like algorithms) and not stupid stuff like hand gestures and Looks. No more gang sign patents. ;)

ThE_JacO
11-02-2008, 01:53 AM
The title of this thread is totally misleading and simply wrong. You guy need to read the article. It doesn't say anything about invalidating software patents. The ruling is just meant to reduce the number of "Frivolous" Patents that try and protect things like business processes and detached concepts. Nothing about software in specific. Things that are real and defined (like algorithms) and not stupid stuff like hand gestures and Looks. No more gang sign patents. ;)

While I agree with you, it does affect our industry too.
There's a number of retarded patents that might be invalidated by this, from Avid's Softimage inherited one on NLA to marking menus, hotbox, gestural patterning (not the algorithmical solutions) etc.

This also means that if you're small scale you can work without having to run and check BS sites like watchdog or have a lawyer just to be able to walk in a stupid minefield. It will reduce court time and litigations and leave more time and resources for the really important things, and leave every grunt programmer have a little bit more peace of mind while working for it.

I'm very happy this is going the way it is. Only a bloody patent lawyer can complain this is non-sense and damaging. In an ideal but impossible world, they will be the first and only class hit by recession with this :p

fluffybunny
11-02-2008, 04:08 AM
Things that are real and defined (like algorithms) and not stupid stuff like hand gestures and Looks. No more gang sign patents. ;)

Algorithms are not patentable. The lawyers have to dance around the concept to get an algorithm patented...something like an implementation of an algorithm.
After reading the Groklaw article's dissection of the Microsoft lawyer being "scared", I didn't have any trouble reading into the decision what the title of this topic is. The thing I wonder, though, is how long it will stay this way. There's a lot of money that wants to keep software patentable.

eek
11-02-2008, 05:33 AM
Methods/process that can be percieved/performed in the human mind can not be patented - everything else is ok. Software patents are still applicable, just a downsizing.

To be clear, the machine-or-transformation test is not a physicality test ľ i.e., a claim can still be patentable even if it does not recite sufficient "physical steps." Here, the court spelled out the specific issue in mind: a claimed process where every step may be performed entirely in the human mind. In that situation, the machine-or-transformation test would lead to unpatentability. "Of course, a claimed process wherein all of the process steps may be performed entirely in the human mind is obviously not tied to any machine and does not transform any article into a different state or thing. As a result, it would not be patent-eligible under ž 101."

Buexe
11-02-2008, 08:41 AM
To be honest I haven`t really understood what that "percieved/performed in the human mind" means for this machine-or-transformation test means. Does it refer to the complexity of an algorithm or what? I mean if I write some code then I could theoretically do all these mathematical operations in my head ( theoretically!), so what qualifies software code as "not performable" by the human mind? :shrug:

eek
11-02-2008, 06:56 PM
To be honest I haven`t really understood what that "percieved/performed in the human mind" means for this machine-or-transformation test means. Does it refer to the complexity of an algorithm or what? I mean if I write some code then I could theoretically do all these mathematical operations in my head ( theoretically!), so what qualifies software code as "not performable" by the human mind? :shrug:

I think it means if you cant visualize the specifics of the math/algorithm involved it would be patentable e.g. an idea in your head, that anyone else can think up in terms of the math wouldn't be patentable - I think.

A good example is dirivative math or 4 dimensional/nspace math - as our brains physical cannot percieve the math involved we just know the calculations are correct via a computer - this would be patentable.

The thing that has frustrated me in the past is the mass patenting of code or algorthms that cant be achieved any other way. The problem with this is that if two companies in complete independence come up with the same code or process by which there is only one optimal way of doing something, they can essentially be sued by the owner of the patent. But then what else can you do?

Its nearly as bad as gene patents.

captain brainiac
11-02-2008, 07:46 PM
...We, the users now have the final laugh !! Yea !!

No...:sad:.. we never had, don't have and never will have the final laugh!

Serious Patents are good, because in any other case research and developement will never pay of.

But patents, like rejected by this court don't make sense at sell.. so cheers to the judges!
And how do we all benefit by this... by nothing at all.... like always!
:shrug:

Hauzer
11-02-2008, 07:48 PM
The double click and buy-it-now patents are invalidated, but the NTFS patent is still valid. Hurray! I can see how software patents can be useful, but I hated that these companies would register so many stupidly obvious ones.

Software patents should now work more like copyright instead of "no, you can't do this or anything like this or we'll sue you".

ngrava
11-03-2008, 12:39 AM
Algorithms are not patentable. The lawyers have to dance around the concept to get an algorithm patented...something like an implementation of an algorithm.
After reading the Groklaw article's dissection of the Microsoft lawyer being "scared", I didn't have any trouble reading into the decision what the title of this topic is. The thing I wonder, though, is how long it will stay this way. There's a lot of money that wants to keep software patentable.


Sorry, yes, you're right about that. I wasn't being very clear. I think of Algorithms and actual code as the same thing. ;) But that's just my silly head. At any rate, you can still patent the code that does something. By the way, I really don't think this affects currently issued patented software. So the Pixar/Apple/Soft/Alias etc. patents are still on as far as I can see. This whole thing is to try and thin out all the patents that have been filed recently. Apparently these companies have been trying really hard to secure their future with patents and it's been insane at the patent office. That's as far as I think this will go.

I think about it this way: Software companies write software and if it's a good idea, then everyone else will copy it and the ideas will become common place. We all benefit from this. It's the same in many other industries as well. The software companies will then just continue to write new software. They will steal ideas and create new ones and the cycle continues. With software patents, some software companies are trying to stop this cycle. They want to get paid for the use of the ideas that they have. But the issue with this in my head is that they do! That's what happens when we buy software. I can understand wanting a patent when the ideas are really big. industry changing ideas. I think of the iPhone as one of those ideas that deserve patents. Maya's Hotbox, while a good idea, is industry changing? Not so much. My feeling about this ruling is that it prevents software companies from patenting ridiculous things. In the end, I think it's better for the users.

UrbanFuturistic
11-03-2008, 12:46 AM
Great for Open Source, but pretty bad for those Low End Programmers who live & die by the sales margin. :wise:Yeah, they'll have to write software that doesn't suck instead of bullying others out of the market. My heart bleeds. The deadwood might actually have to work for a living.

CGTalk Moderation
11-03-2008, 12:46 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.