Should the U.S. abolish software patent laws?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

RabidMongoose

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Copyright protection isn't really significant for protecting the idea or concept for what the code is to accomplish. I think that there would need to be a middle ground, somewhere between one end being the whole actual code and the other end being the abstract idea, like saying that the software patent claims must claim more algorithmic detail, but that would be almost impossible for the USPTO to assess on a case by case basis
 
R

RabidMongoose

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Why do they need to know about programming?

It's possible that the attorney who wrote the patent knows something about programming. but I guess with the way a lot of software patents are these days, it's possible to write a software patent and have no idea about programming at all.
 
cutforscience

cutforscience

Banned
Jun 10, 2011
291
0
0
they need to know something about them when they go to court or something.

and remember they are the ones who made the patent software laws.
 
R

RabidMongoose

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
cutforscience said:
they need to know something about them when they go to court or something.

and remember they are the ones who made the patent software laws.
Click to expand...

When they go to court, they're looking at the claims, not actual programming code, well, I guess they may look at the code of the potentially infringing software.

However, trials tend to include experts anyways as well as attorneys with relevant experience.
 
cutforscience

cutforscience

Banned
Jun 10, 2011
291
0
0
they can't know if the patent covers this or that because they are very general and they can't know if the patent is absurd or not.
 
Lemon law

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Soft ware patients remind me of the old story of a politician who gave a brilliant and original speech. When out of the crowd emerges a lone nut, carry a big book, saying every word in the speech is plagiarized and copied from this book.

And for proof, he lays down a copy of the Websters dictionary.

Very much reminds me of software copyright laws. There are many many ways to accomplish the same end, why should any given one be allowed to be patented? Especially as other methods may be more efficient and arrive at an end even faster and more accurately than our original author.

But still one should not be able to simply steal an original complete set of software algorithms, and sell its as your own. How to tell the difference, now that is the rub.
 
cutforscience

cutforscience

Banned
Jun 10, 2011
291
0
0
Because software is abstract, the test for whether an idea is obvious "to one skilled in the art" is very difficult to apply. The test cannot be based on the amount of effort expended in working out the idea, because the least obvious ideas are often the simplest. Nor is it clear what it means: what if an idea is obvious to a thousand of the best programmers in the world, but not obvious to a million others? Simultaneous and independent invention is not unique to the software field, but it is certainly a characteristic feature of software that good programmers will tend to come to the same solution independently.
 
P

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Patents should only last a few years like they are suppose to do instead of being renewed forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom