Lawyer: Software Can Be Patented Even Without Code

[Guest]

There is an interesting post on software patents by Gene Quinn, a patent attorney and editor of the IPWatchdog blog. Quinn's advice is that there's always something that can be patented in software.

Lawyer: Software Can Be Patented Even Without Code : Read more

 

[nikorr]

The only happy people will be lawyers, in such cases : )

 

[ct001]

What happens when everything becomes patented? Because the patents they are giving are so broad/ambiguous, if you just have to come up with an idea, soon everything will be covered, indirectly or otherwise.

 

[Goldengoose]

I don't agree with the system but the reason you can patent an idea is so that £millions$ isn't spent into projects in a race to get it finished first only to have a competitor complete it earlier than you and get the patent. It's not flawless because of people like apple.

 

[sayakbiswas]

i wanna patent electrons moving through matter on a pre-defined path......hmm....y stop there......i wanna patent all the laws of science,and the ones yet to be discovered...

 

[sayakbiswas]

jokes apart......this patent thingy is becoming more ridiculous by the day.......i have some ideas on how we'll communicate after 15-20 yrs........why dont i patent them and wait quietly for some one to make something vaguely similar and sue the poor chap/ evil corp to mars????


btw....do i have to file patents in every country or just my homeland???

 

[drwho1]

I think that I need to patent "the act of having an idea".
and... "the act to getting the idea to patent a idea"

Yep, that should cover everything.

PS: Apple.... Byte Me!

 

[RoboTree]

If you can do, do.
If you can't do, teach.
If you can't teach, patent.

 

[back_by_demand]

Lawyer uses the legal system to successfully argue that black is white
...
Then is killed on a zebra crossing

 

[de5_Roy]

apple will make a lot of lawyers happy with this

 

[ojas]

imo it should be a two step process. Whoever thinks of something without a blueprint gets a patent even if there are other similar ones, but only if no one else submits a detailed blueprint either. But then you have to back it up with a product/blueprint to get a final patent, till then if someone else does the same thing by some other way, they cannot be sued or something.
Or something like that, i mean, hell, i'm not a lawyer.

 

[ojas]

oh yeah, general vague patents should be banned, i mean there should be no patent for:

"i have thought of an advanced anti-virus software that will remove advanced viruses from advanced systems because i am crAp-...no wait MACS WILL NEVER GET VIR-[ERROR: VIRUS ATTACK DETECTED. CALL A GENIUS HOME]" (sounds so wrong lol)

 

[reggieray]

Says the greedy patent lawyer, scum of the earth excuse for a human.

 

[Guest]

Software patents are EXACTLY why innovation is dying in the technology field.

 

[marraco]

It's like patenting flying carpets. You don't need to actually invent one. You patent a fantasy, and some day somebody will invent one. Then you ask royalties.

 

[lp231]

I'm going to patent the process of thinking, then I own everything because you will need to think first before coming up with a idea. hahhahahahaha!

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]marraco[/nom]It's like patenting flying carpets. You don't need to actually invent one. You patent a fantasy, and some day somebody will invent one. The you ask royalties.[/citation]
Quick! Do it! Pass on the patent to your grandkids and when they actually invent one you will have a valuable investment to pass on.
/think Apple.

 

[cryptz]

I didn’t read the article, I read the title and thought that is ridiculous. I didn’t want to piss myself off anymore by actually reading it. In my opinion you should not be able to patent the result of software. If you don’t disclose the actual code then really you aren’t showing anyone how to do something by releasing your product. 2 comparable applications that have similar results may be coded completely differently, different languages, different approaches etc. Some guy with zero programming knowledge should not be able to acquire a patent with no clue on how to actually follow through on it. Alternatively coming up with any idea shouldn’t allow you to patent the result without disclosing the actual code. This is not because I feel like you should have to show your code, but more because without the code the patent doesn’t really have any substance. Things like one click checkout are common sense and not revolutionary, yet could be implemented and coded about 1 million different ways. I would accept someone trying to patent 1 of the million ways, but not the whole concept.

 

[GreaseMonkey_62]

I just submitted patents for Windows 9, Mac OSXI, iOS6 and Android 4.5. So now all I have to do is wait for the royalty checks.

 

[chomlee]

Years ago when I had to put together patent submissions for dental devices, I actually had to produce documents describing the design in detail. In other words the objective of "how" you would do something seemed to be a requirement.

Now, it seems you can patent the "what" you want to do without giving up the means of "how" you will do it. Its absolutely rediculus. Technically this does mean you could patent things you want like " a vehicle running on water" and then just sit and wait for someone to invent it.

It brings to mind the old joke "what do you call a busload of lawyers driving off a cliff???? A good start!"

 

[GreaseMonkey_62]

This whole thing is out of control. And there is no room for a small company or individual to patent something, because the corporations will hire an avalanche of lawyers to take it from you. And apparently in Germany all you need is a vague drawing that looks like a generic tablet and you win. So it's not all bad here.

 

[Filiprino]

Quinn stresses that, in the U.S. software can be patented if it is unique and if it is tied to a machine.

All software is tied to a machine.

Unfortunately, some [software developers] do the programming first and never approach the design as an engineering problem for which they have a unique solution

I agree partially. He says you have to take the engineering problem aproach, which is true. But then he states that you have to patent the idea, not a determined specification of that idea.

You know, all cars use door locks, but every car has a unique implementation of its locks.

This attorney is telling us that a car manufacturer could file a patent which, literally, says:
"Mechanism that allows a car's door to remain locked". WTF is that patent? Bullshit. The same applies for Apple's patent on "mechanism where by sliding a finger over a tactile screen the phone gets unlocked".

 

[rocso]

So what he is really saying is that the Scifi entertainment industry owns everything?

 

[hoof_hearted]

Legal theft is all it is.

If you can't code it, then you don't own it. That is how it should be.

 

[gsxrme]

Death to anyone who supports Patents and Death to all the attorenys who support them. US Patents have become a joke and sooner than later this joke will leave the court rooms and end in peoples lives. Tomany large companys are killing the smaller companys with these bogus patents of things they never made nor wrote. All to stomp out the small fish and each other. The day the shit hits the fan. The day I pity no one, relief, FREEDOM!