Lawyer: Software Can Be Patented Even Without Code

[wiyosaya]

[citation][nom]sayakbiswas[/nom]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???[/citation]
A US patent expires in under 20 years meaning that by the time the working device hits the market, you would have no claim. When a patent expires, it becomes public domain.

While I am not a patent attorney, my understanding is that you have to file for a patent in every country.

 

[CyberAngel]

You vote the wrong persons and this is the result:
"Liar Liar!" guys'n'gals own you, your software and the world.

Now we finally know how to detect the Antichrist!

 

[davewolfgang]

[citation][nom]cryptz[/nom]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.[/citation]

^^^ This!!!

The actual WORKINGS are what you patent, not the FINAL result.

Coil springs and leaf springs DO the same thing, but nobody was ALLOWED to patent the "Result". (I don't think anyone back then would even THINK of even doing each one either...that "common sense" thing that we seem to have lost these past decades...)

 

[Guest]

This is ridiculous! Then I patent Windows 8 on ARM. It doesn't matter how I accomplished the feat with programming, but it's my idea. We cannot patent mathematical formulas, General Shapes should be no different. Patenting should only provide software protection within its platform as similar or partially identical code would have to be used to accomplish the same goal.

The patent system needs to be completely overhauled. We do need to protect a person's innovation, but we need to force these companies to compete harder to continue their innovation.

We also, need to limit patents so they do not start to infringe on our liberty and freedoms.

 

[rohitbaran]

[citation][nom]RoboTree[/nom]If you can do, do.If you can't do, teach.If you can't teach, patent.[/citation]
If you can't patent, become a lawyer and troll.

 

[TeraMedia]

"Use it or lose it"

If you file a patent, but you are unable to deliver a product within a short, set period of time, your patent should become public domain. It's ok to team up with a 3rd party to produce the product, but it's not ok to squat on an idea and wait for a lawsuit victim.

 

[Benihana]

It's a good thing bathrooms don't have cameras, as I'm sure the way I wipe my bottom violates somebody's patent.

 

[audioee]

I think I will patent 42 and sue everybody for everything...

 

[coldmast]

Ideas should never be patentable; otherwise we owe a lot of science fiction writers tons of money.

 

[txsouthpaw]

The U.S. is a supply side welfare state hell-bent upon redistributing wealth from the poor and middle classes to the corporate elite through all manner of schemes. This is merely another tool to squelch genuine innovation and design in order to further the profits of the already wealthy.

 

[gm0n3y]

As a software developer, there is no way that software should be allowed to be patented. It really sucks to write a cool innovative feature and have another company copy it, but not allowing that would really ruin the industry. Every time a developer needs to write software to solve a problem he/she first looks at how others have solved the same problem. I can't even imagine if I couldn't do that.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]Zingam[/nom]Yet another guy who doesn't know shit about software but makes money on the work of many hardworking people.Software should not be patentable[/citation]

lets say you write a codec that allows 4k to run off a single core cpu alone, impossible i believe but lets say you do.

the code is basicly gods gift to computers.

you compile it and sell it for 20-30$

a bigger company wants their software to sell better, so they put your code into their software, and there is nothing you can really do about it.

i believe software should be patentable, but it should also be something that isnt a generic and obvious solution, and you should at the very least have a show able product done.

 

[anti-painkilla]

Patents are necessary, look at what happened with Ghost, the source code was taken by an employee and a rival product was made, Shadow.

While patents are needed, at the moment they just aren't working. The problem is the lawyers, as others have said, are able to argue and win cases because judges know nothing about software development.

A lot of people create 'free' products, but not enough people donate to make this an acceptable way to get paid for the work you have done. The last thing you want is someone copying your idea and making lots of money off it.

 

[STravis]

[citation][nom]Zingam[/nom]Yet another guy who doesn't know shit about software but makes money on the work of many hardworking people.Software should not be patentable[/citation]

So that it can't be protected (in some form) so that freeloaders can copy the work of hardworking people and make money off their work?

 

[Guest]

I have a great idea. Let's make Lawyer Defenses and Arguments Patentable. So those brilliant Lawyers can earn Royalties. And judges won't have to listen to unlicensed arguments.

Remo

 

[poxenium]

I patent "software that does something", so I should get all the money ever made from selling software?
For a long time humanity struggled to make 1 or 2 copies of important stone tablets and early writings ... and today you're punished for copying some text or code?
I think this patent system is already backfiring and will soon be elliminated or drastically modified.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]STravis[/nom]So that it can't be protected (in some form) so that freeloaders can copy the work of hardworking people and make money off their work?[/citation]
2 patent systems, one for the physical, one for the digital.
digital pattents cant be taken to normal courts
the new courts would know everything about the code, or at least, the tech

this would make most of apples patents invalid, because everything they patent is obvious, like the unlock patent they got.

 

[Guest]

How about screw protecting anybody's invention, and just make it a big free for all? If patents are supposed to protect "the little guy", then they certainly aren't doing that, imagine the innovation we'd get if anybody could make anything they wanted, even "borrowing ideas" to make something new, without fear of being sued.

Linux and other open source projects like Apache, Postgresql, Hadoop, LinuxHA, Squid, etc... innovate massively, and they don't need patents or any kind of protection to find motivation to do so. Microsoft sits on trillions of patents, and they've barely progressed since Windows 2000 came out. 80% of their new products flop, the only thing keeping them going is that they have their business customers by the balls.

*queue up some un-innovative person declaring that there would be no incentive to invent anything, and that everyone would just go work at McDonalds*

 

[willwayne]

I'm going to patent the act of making an outlandish joke about patenting something obvious.

Maybe then the threat of a lawsuit will get it to stop.

 

[arlandi]

doesn't surprise me... while the whole world suffer from freedom to innovate, the Lawyers will get richer.

 

[eddieroolz]

Software doesn't always have one unique solution. There are many ways to write a merge sort or a binary search, not just one.

 

[PreferLinux]

[citation][nom]anti-painkilla[/nom]Patents are necessary, look at what happened with Ghost, the source code was taken by an employee and a rival product was made, Shadow.While patents are needed, at the moment they just aren't working. The problem is the lawyers, as others have said, are able to argue and win cases because judges know nothing about software development. A lot of people create 'free' products, but not enough people donate to make this an acceptable way to get paid for the work you have done. The last thing you want is someone copying your idea and making lots of money off it.[/citation]
That's not a patent issue, but rather copyright.