[fluffernutter]

Patents are really the stupidest things ever.

The idea that something or an idea can be limited to a particular chain of causality is irrational. The only reason someone likes the idea of saying only one chain of causality should exist for an idea or, better put an idea that makes money, is because they themselves like money or think they can gain access to that money.

Even the Cornoavirus has been shown to innovate, through mutation, by changing itself. It is not a single change, either. Many, many viruses change themselves to a new same same configuration over time. Now some may not, but some definitely do, which means that change is available to all.

Just because someone is able to get resources to patent an idea is not a good reason to allow them "protection" over another who did not have the resources, but still arrived intellectually at the same conclusion.

Are we to say all things we do are protected if they bring value? What about all the things we do not do that bring value? Will those be protected next?

If I had resources to spend on a thing, it would be to invent a space drive to get the fuck off this planet and away from all the greedy people.

[pbhjpbhj]

FWIW patents cover inventions, not ideas. An invention is there implementation of an idea. They also require the submission of a workable embodiment in order to be granted.

USA does blur the lines with its broad software patents and business method patents. But we in Europe have software patents to, they're just for inventions, not ideas.

This post is my personal opinion and does not relate to my employment.

[nybble41]

The implementation of an idea is a specific physical machine (not class of machines) or an active production process. The moment you start talking about how similar one machine or process is to some other machine or process (the core of any patent infringement case) you're back in the realm of ideas.

It's the idea of an implementation that is patented, not the implementation of an idea.

This is particularly obvious when it comes to software patents as the entire process being patented concerns the manipulation of abstract information, which places even the implementation of the idea squarely in the realm of ideas. Even if that patent office requires the software to be "embodied" in some general-purpose computer before granting the patent, the patent covers the abstract data-manipulation algorithms even when they are reimplemented in different software running on a completely different kind of computer—which puts the lie to the idea that this "embodiment" has any relevance at all to the patent.

[CamperBob2]

FWIW patents cover inventions, not ideas.

A true but useless statement. An idea is not patentable. An idea implemented in a computer program is.

[zoobab]

"An idea implemented in a computer program is."

Not according to EPC art52.2 (in Europe).

And not according to Alice jurisprudence (in the US).

But the patent lobby, including the patent offices, are at work trying to destroy those.