• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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.
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top