[n00b101]

The patent system is so horribly broken.

Let me get this straight ... something as simple as 2-factor authentication can be patented in the US and enforced world-wide? Let's say I'm running a start-up or a small business and I need secure, remote access ... my go-to solution would be to use 2-factor authentication ... but I have to worry about getting sued or finding funds for paying extortion money just to apply an idea that's about as dead-simple as passwords? How is this a good thing for inventors?

[homosaur]

We've well established at this point that the archaic US Patent System and software patents in general are not good for inventors, consumers, or the economy in general.

They are good for lobbyists and entrenched megacorporations, however, which means we can ignore all that and it's good for the public. Now go take your medicine, slave.

[dreamdu5t]

It is not well established or popular opinion. I work at a startup and many of my co-workers support patents, copyright, and intellectual property while simultaneously decrying patents like this.

[alipang]

I don't find it helpful to mix in copyright/intellectual property into this discussion as there is no reason why you can't support these while not supporting the patenting of ideas.

Personally I don't regard two-step authentication, or software patents in general as a kind of "invention", and don't find they should be patentable, much like "prime numbers" or "the periodic table".

[dreamdu5t]

I'd be interested in the reasoning you would support copyright but not patents? Copyright and patents have the exact same justification, just one is for published works and the other for "inventions." Both copyright and patents are titles of ownership to information.

[alipang]

I support patents, just not software patents. You can spend billions developing a new drug, and companies need to get reimbursed somehow for that, or everybody loses.

How much you think was been spent "inventing" two-factor authentication?

Can you give an example of software that you'd argue wouldn't have been developed if there were no software patents?

[wnight]

Copyright is somewhat legitimate because it recognizes that I may create an identical work especially if the problem space is small.

Patents are all about camping on an idea you hope is so obvious the next people will instinctively think of the same thing.

[dsl]

The people who don't like software patents, are the people who don't have any good ones.

[dsl]

Don't confuse commonplace with simple. I think lots of people argue that a patent is trivial, because the idea has gained adoption and become universal. At the time of invention something might be totally groundbreaking, but a critical part of every household 10 years on.

I'm not saying that is the case here (A quick Google search finds SecurID was released in ~1994-1995), but the dismissive attitude of patents in general because you've come to rely on the technology really irks me.

[mattmanser]

Do you have example patents to prove your point?

Why can't I just claim all software patents simple? You just have to be presented with the problem and have a smart person sit down long enough to come up with the solution. And often that's measured in hours or days once the problem is presented clearly. None of us are as smart as we think we are, even if the solution appears elegant.

They don't take thousands of different filament tests. Or massive amounts of research trials. No repeated prototype builds. Or anything that actually costs money apart from simply thought.

And worse still, there's often no other way to solve the problem than the patented way and as we see so often the idea is solved repeatedly by different people.

You might reasonably argue that realizing the problem exists is 90% of the work and that is expensive, but then you're really patenting a business processes just like one-click shopping or two factor authentication.

[fakeer]

1. Patent system is broken, you said it. So is copyright and many other systems or maybe nearly all of them.

2. Now, the guy just wants to fight it according to the broken system and if nothing else then at least the double standard (of authorities/govt) will come out evident.

Having said these, his patent is just too generic but then so are many "touch", "pinch", "zoom", "rectangular computing devices" patents and we have had very interesting verdicts from around the world.