wtf? YAPSIFUT (Yet another patent system is...

[Sho'Nuff]

Hmm. I'm not sure the slice is really optimal vs. non-optimal. It's obviousness vs non-obviousness. The definition of obviousness with respect to patents, if I understand it correctly, turns on whether one "skilled in the art" would recognize the method or invention as obvious. So here's the problem: when it comes to software nobody in the world is "skilled in the art" except those of us who do it. The rest of you know nothing. I mean that literally. The distance between the vague comprehension of software possessed by non-engineering professionals who work in its orbit, and what the stuff actually is and does is the difference between pig-latin and the actual language.

Much of my attitude toward patents and the patent system is because of my exposure to the issues with software patents over the last thirty years. The abuses have been legendary.

While I would never say I am an expert in software (or any technical field, for that matter), I definitely know a fair bit about it even though I do not program for a living or even have a CS degree. I've been more than just a little interested in computers and programming since I was ~7 years old (I'm 37 now) and my mom brought home a C64. I wrote my first programs by the time I was 10, and I coded some relatively complex stuff in high school and college (albeit in my spare time). I am also an avid hardware enthusiast. The first big purchase I made in my life was at age 13, when I bought a computer after working for my father as a house painter for an entire summer. I researched and bought the components and put the thing together back in 1991, which as you probably know was not the easiest thing to do back then. Since then I have constructed hundreds of PCs and spent literally countless hours reading about the technical aspects of hardware and software, albeit only as a hobby. So no, I am not a subject matter expert. But when you combine 30 years of high level hobbyist activity with a technical background and materials science, I think you will appreciate that I have a pretty good sense of what software is, the software/hardware interface, and how hardware is actually made. As to what other patent attorneys know, I can't say. But I am certainly not clueless when it comes to software.

Also - let me point out that all patent attorneys work closely with the inventors when drafting a patent application, in large part to ensure that the application is technically accurate. If I don't understand something about an invention when I am drafting a case, it is not as though I just make crap up. I talk to the inventor and figure it out.

All that said, your points regarding software patents are well taken. There does seem to be a concentration of questionable patents in that area, and lots of "troll" litigation is centralized on software related patents. But as I have said before, to condemn the entire system for the issues with a few patents in one specific area is misguided IMO.

 

[Markbnj]

But when you combine 30 years of high level hobbyist activity with a technical background and materials science, I think you will appreciate that I have a pretty good sense of what software is, the software/hardware interface, and how hardware is actually made. As to what other patent attorneys know, I can't say. But I am certainly not clueless when it comes to software.

Yeah I'm not saying you have to do it for a living, or even that you have to have done it professionally at some point. I was using "you" in an impersonal sense, and could better have said "they." You have to at least have written code, i.e. working programs. If you know enough to do that, then you know enough to form at least some accurate conclusions about a particular implementation. If you can't sit down and write code, then you can't speak the language, and you can't possibly understand why "Method of displaying an informational window in the center of a raster computer display for the purposes of interacting with a user in real time" is just a complicated way of describing stuff everybody in our business knew how to do long before the patent app was authored.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Yeah I'm not saying you have to do it for a living, or even that you have to have done it professionally at some point. I was using "you" in an impersonal sense, and could better have said "they." You have to at least have written code, i.e. working programs. If you know enough to do that, then you know enough to form at least some accurate conclusions about a particular implementation. If you can't sit down and write code, then you can't speak the language, and you can't possibly understand why "Method of displaying an informational window in the center of a raster computer display for the purposes of interacting with a user in real time" is just a complicated way of describing stuff everybody in our business knew how to do long before the patent app was authored.

I can agree with that. What you may not know however is that most patent attorneys who practice patent preparation and prosecution (like me) all have technical backgrounds, and we generally try to stick within the technical regimes we know. Partly for the reasons you state, and partly because it is very hard to efficiently write a patent application when you do not understand the language.

Also FWIW - many patent attorneys are not given the option of telling their clients that they should not file. If a client says that they want to file on something, our obligation is (in most cases) to help them achieve the goal. The patent examination process is generally viewed as the ultimate measure of patentability, not an attorney's opinion.

 

[Markbnj]

I can agree with that. What you may not know however is that most patent attorneys who practice patent preparation and prosecution (like me) all have technical backgrounds, and we generally try to stick within the technical regimes we know. Partly for the reasons you state, and partly because it is very hard to efficiently write a patent application when you do not understand the language.

Also FWIW - many patent attorneys are not given the option of telling their clients that they should not file. If a client says that they want to file on something, our obligation is (in most cases) to help them achieve the goal. The patent examination process is generally viewed as the ultimate measure of patentability, not an attorney's opinion.

Agreed, you don't expect a patent attorney to weigh in on viability, I guess in other than extremely obvious cases. We retained attorneys solely for the purpose of guiding the authoring of the application.

 

[Red Squirrel]

In fact, you can avoid this patent, by simply using a different camera system with a larger/smaller sensor, and adapting lens focal length and aperture to match - the resulting image will look exactly like the one you took using the patented method. Or you can change the ratio in the lighting ever so slightly, and make it 31:100 instead of 3:10 - you're no longer infringing.

The issue I have with that is with all these very specific patents being granted, nobody has the time to research every possible patent they can think of before they do something. It's pretty bad if I have to start googling and researching photography patents before I take a picture.

If that is patentable then who knows what else is. These trolls may start patenting all sorts of different photography settings just so they can sue people.

 

[_Rick_]

Again, with good patents that is not a problem, as they patent non-obvious inventions. The likelihood of just stumbling across something that has been patented by accident and without being an expert in the field (who needs to keep abreast with publications in his field to be an expert) is unlikely to the point of impossibility.

 

[moonbogg]

This is killing our economy. Terrible outcome for all.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Again, with good patents that is not a problem, as they patent non-obvious inventions. The likelihood of just stumbling across something that has been patented by accident and without being an expert in the field (who needs to keep abreast with publications in his field to be an expert) is unlikely to the point of impossibility.

So why do patents like this always happen then? This is not the first ridiculous patent to be filed.

Look at all the apple patents like slide to unlock or rounded corners, those are other examples of stupid things that should not be patentable.

 

[_Rick_]

So why do patents like this always happen then? This is not the first ridiculous patent to be filed.

Look at all the apple patents like slide to unlock or rounded corners, those are other examples of stupid things that should not be patentable.

Don't confound design patents with functionality patents.
They have differing requirements and are separate from the traditional patent system. I'm not sure about UI patents, as a a patent can never be applied to an algorithm, only to an implementation. And an UI element is always linked to an interaction. Whether you can say "slide to unlock" is a specific implementation of an unlocking system, is debatable, but apparently the patent examiners are okay with that.