[knorker]

> But aren't patents supposed to protect implementations of ideas, not the ideas themselves?

This is the problem with software patents. The border between ideas and implementation is not as clear.

Strictly the answer to your question is no. Copyright protects the implementation, and patents protect the ideas. But where's the difference between an idea, and a design?

For software, what's the difference between a design and the implementation? Sure, you may actually have a separate design (and not "the implementation is the design"), but in software the step from "design" to "implementation" isn't "manufacturing".

Sure, even for physical goods, and their patents, the patent is often not sufficient to create a working system.

For those holding software patents, they have to also list all ideas they have around that. Because there are patent trolls who check for new patents, and then file patents around that, creating a mine field so tight that you cannot even use your own invention.

Analogy: you patent a laser pointer, and immediately someone patents all possible use cases for a laser pointer they can think of (point at things during presentation, aim weapons, exercise cats[1], project things onto a wall, stick the laser pointer in a handheld device, have a button on the laser pointer, non-chargable batteries in the laser pointer, chargable batteries, mains powered, capacitor powered, etc… etc…

Anyway, a comment field is not sufficient to explore just why software don't fit well under the model of patents.

[1] this is a real patent, by the way.

[DoingIsLearning]

> For those holding software patents, they have to also list all ideas they have around that. > Because there are patent trolls who check for new patents, and then file patents around that, creating a mine field so tight that you cannot even use your own invention.

This is something I never understood. When someone submits those type of patents, the patent officer most certainly knows the 'prior art' original patent exists. So why is this not patent 'obviousness'?

[knorker]

Aside from how the patent office no longer checks for prior art, but lets court fight it out, there's also the fact that technically these are not duplicates of prior art.

Technically using a laser pointer to exercise a cat is a new invention. Technically after that exercising a dog is another invention.

But even when not as obvious as that, imagine that you file a patent for the phone, and immediately someone patents every "step two", like the phone exchange, the ring, etc, to the point where you can't actually use your invention without licensing the next step.

That's one reason patent applications can be vague. It's not that they are not going to do the next step, is that they are patenting step 1 now, and are "inventing" step two right after.

[thfuran]

Because the patent office now pretty much just checks if something is the same as prior art and let's the issue of obviousness or usefulness be settled in litigation.