What does one need for a software patent?

[Onceler]

Does one actually have to provide source code, or can it be an exact description of what the software does?

 

[irishScott]

Nowadays, money. Someone's probably already patented your idea. 😛

 

[Aluvus]

Patents do not require any demonstration of an actual implementation (unless USPTO thinks you're trying to sneak a perpetual-motion machine through), just a description of the invention.

 

[slugg]

Patents do not require any demonstration of an actual implementation (unless USPTO thinks you're trying to sneak a perpetual-motion machine through), just a description of the invention.

You don't need to justify the methodology? So I can throw around random ideas, never actual develop them, and get them patented?

 

[brandonb]

About 6 years ago I worked at a place that was trying to patent some software technology of theirs. All I remember is that a year after starting the process they were not finished, and were reviewing other patents out there they either were given by lawyers or found on their own which were similar and trying to get past all the legal definitions to figure out what was going on. I remember having to review these other patents to see if they were the same or different because the executives of the company couldn't figure out the technical descriptions.

Anyways. To make a really long story short, no, you do not need source code. You just need to describe what it's doing at very fine detail. The business logic rather than the providing any actual implementation.

I'd never do it personally after being involved with the process once.

 

[Train]

You don't need to justify the methodology? So I can throw around random ideas, never actual develop them, and get them patented?

They have to be somewhat specific, but any patent lawyer will tell you "start as general as possible, and add a little specificity every time the reviewer rejects it" that way you get the most broad patent possible.

This process takes about 3-5 years, is expensive, and you have to know how to talk the Patent agent lingo.

The last place I worked tried patenting an app I made in 2005. When I left in 2010 they were still in the back and forth with the agent. (IIRC the original filing for patent was early 2006)

I didnt think my software was patentable (mostly in the sense that I think most software in general is not patentable), and thought the entire idea of trying to extort competitors with a patent was a waste of time. Boss was insistent though, I was in several meetings and calls with the lawyers and the patent agent over several years. The entire process made me feel dirty.

 

[Aluvus]

You don't need to justify the methodology? So I can throw around random ideas, never actual develop them, and get them patented?

That's the long and short of it, yes.

 

[Markbnj]

I've contributed to two or three granted patents, and I wrote two applications that are still outstanding. None of them included source. The structure and content of a patent application can be readily understood by reading a few online. If you're at all handy with language, and really know the material, it isn't that hard to write one once you understand what goes in them.

Patent attorneys are pretty expensive, and you shouldn't be surprised at predictions of $50-100k to write the application and see it through the process.

 

[Train]

You don't need to justify the methodology? So I can throw around random ideas, never actual develop them, and get them patented?

Yep. It's up to someone else to challenge your patent in court, and get it ruled invalid.

 

[Onceler]

Thank you for the responces.

 

[BoberFett]

It's not about what you need for a software patent, it's about what you lack. Namely a soul... 😛

 

[invidia]

Does one actually have to provide source code, or can it be an exact description of what the software does?

You can only patent the method of the software program. You can't patent the piece of code itself.

You can send in your source code, but if it's too long or complex, patent examiners won't look at it. I know I won't look at code unless it's very simple and is the core idea that demonstrates the novelty of your invention.

At the rate examiners are going, you won't get a patent until 3-5 years from now, assuming that you CAN get a patent for whatever you are inventing. I've examined patents written by pro se applicants, (aka those doing without an attorney) and they weren't pretty.