[siphor]

i get a large majority of software patents should not exist, but are there no software ideas that are truly patentable?

what makes a "physical" patent you consider valid different from a software patent?

I know there is some difference, it's hard to formalize though.

Say someone spent years building a compression algorithm 10x better than everyone else's in some novel way and then tried to capitalize on it. And then google just copied the idea and put this guys company out of business. Isn't that bad?

[chrismcb]

No, there are no software ideas that are truly patentable, because ideas area not patentable. Code is copyrighted. Algorithms shouldn't be. If you spent developing a better compression, then sell the software, but don't release the algorithm.

Some of the problems with software patents is "on a computer" or "on a server" just aren't novel enough. In fact, that is the problem with most patents, they aren't novel enough.

[jacques_chester]

Every patent is composed of ideas, based on a description of something that can be made by humans, thought of by a human.

[pnw_hazor]

the "on a computer" days are long past. And, soon the remainder of those crap computer-related patents from the early days will expire anyway if they haven't been invalidated already.

[egdod]

> ideas area not patentable

Totally wrong. Ideas are exactly what is protected by patents.

[wiggles_md]

Patents protect inventions, not ideas. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-you-patent-an-idea

[egdod]

What’s an “invention”? It’s not a particular physical embodiment.

[jcranmer]

A long time ago I was vehemently against all software patents. But as I thought about it more, I ran into the same problem you did: where is the boundary between a clear "machine" patent versus a software patent, especially if you look at modern microprocessors that rely heavily on microcode.

My resolution to the conundrum is this: software should be patentable, but we should recognize that the bar for a software patent is much higher. It is much, much easier to iterate on several ideas and concepts in software than it is in hardware: I can try five approaches in a day in software, but building five prototype machines may take several months.

As an example of something that might make the bar, I'd submit PageRank. It's easy to say that it's merely taking the eigenvalue of the Internet, so therefore it's not patentable. But the novelty and creativity is not in figuring out how to take the eigenvalue, but recognizing that the result of this operation is tremendously useful in the problem of searching the internet. The combination of the algorithm and the use it is put to is the basis of the patent--for prior art here, note that drug patents do not patent the molecule itself, or the process of manufacturing the molecule, but using the molecule to treat the condition.

[jacques_chester]

The thing is, you don't need to build a machine to patent the design. You just need to design it. So you can still try five approaches a day for a hardware invention as you do for software.

I generally agree that picking the right line is hard and that nobody will ever be happy.

[jcranmer]

There used to be a requirement that you had a prototype in order to obtain a patent. I wouldn't mind going back to that requirement.

[wiggles_md]

Restoring that requirement across the board would have a profound negative impact on the biotech (and likely I would guess, advanced materials) sectors. Think of, for example, discovering a useful small molecule, and wishing to build a moat around it while you do the med chem work for a lead compound.

[jcranmer]

You have to at least build the compound to do the assay to actually find out that it's useful.

[wiggles_md]

What you describe is the current practice. What I am trying to suggest is that it is reasonable to be able to use a Markush claim for obvious related compounds.

[jacques_chester]

Maybe, but it's not very tractable to have thousands of prototypes being delivered to the USPTO each day. The point of the patent is to provide all the information required to completely recreate the invention and explain how it works.

[humanrebar]

> Isn't that bad?

Yes. You don't invent or build math; you discover it. It's nature.

Patenting DNA is also silly for similar reasons.

[hgoel]

You do however build software. Even with DNA, if you manually assemble a sequence, is it not something you've built? DNA imo is special not because of being something you discover, but because it's an integral part of everyone and the process by which sequences occur naturally is too random to guarantee that a sequence will remain unique.

Software on the other hand, is still the product of a thinking mind, so it should be given proper protections as intellectual property. However, the standard for the patent needs to be much higher than it is right now (presumably because those determining the uniqueness of the idea aren't all that experienced or up to date with the industry the idea relates to).

Either that or a better way for people to contest the validity of patents.

[garmaine]

> Even with DNA, if you manually assemble a sequence, is it not something you've built?

That’s not what DNA patents are. People are patenting genes that they find in nature. No invention at all, nothing created.

[shujito]

One still could be able to license the software while keeping it closed source until one decides to let people use it freely.

[perfunctory]

Presumably in a world without patents a monopoly like google wouldn’t exist.

[HarryHirsch]

what makes a "physical" patent you consider valid different from a software patent?

The investment. When you do process development or manufacturing the outlays for research and development are infinitely larger. You need a pilot plant, prototypes, testing, and soon you have spent tens of millions that you need to recover. In software you pay the salaries of a team of programmers. The investment in research that needs to be recovered before you can turn a profit is infinitely smaller, in software you have a government-protected money printing machine. Trade secrets work well enough.

[jacques_chester]

Patents are not granted according to development cost or profit potential.

[HarryHirsch]

That is the problem. You have people patenting the problem space, and then they just squat there, preventing innovation. Imagine NMR processing. One company patents fast fourier transform, the other patents entropy maximization. Everyone else gets to pay licenses. The power of government has been suborned for private profit with no public benefit.

[pnw_hazor]

You can't patent a problem space. You can get patents on innovations in a problem space.

Several patents from several inventors can be directed to solving the same exact problem. It is the 'how' that matters not the 'what'

[jacques_chester]

Patents are a tradeoff between granting a monopoly (generally negative) and creating a public good (generally positive). They're time limited for that reason.

If you find the patent valuable enough to license, you have the advantage that you have a description of the idea sufficiently detailed that you can recreate it after paying the license. The patent owner gets a return for their very chancy investment (well-prepared patents are expensive). After 20 years everyone can use it for free.

The alternative is that nobody shares anything with anyone. You still wind up with monopolies on ideas, but no incentive for anyone to convert their ideas into a public good after a fixed term.

[justinclift]

> The alternative is that nobody shares anything with anyone.

Open Source software demonstrates otherwise.

Also interesting, several major companies in existence today (including a well known chocolate manufacturer) were started when their home country decided patents weren't useful, so stopped using them.

[jacques_chester]

> Open Source software demonstrates otherwise.

Major opensource projects are predominantly developed by fulltime professionals working for companies that obtain patents as a matter of policy.

We have an example of what the world was like before patents: the guild system. It didn't appreciably advance technology.

[pnw_hazor]

Also, innovation is encouraged by forcing inventors to discover different ways to solve the same problem if licensing a patent is not an option.

[yxhuvud]

Knowledge would still spread as people change jobs etc. Your view of knowledge seem very company based, but the know-how resides in the people and they move around.

[jacques_chester]

Know-how is not the same as particular inventions. Besides which, confidentiality agreements would be much more aggressively enforced than they are now, to the point that they would make it unattractive to hire someone who's worked for a direct competitor.