AMD wins Patent Infringement lawsuit against Vizio

[mr moose]

14 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

i find it laughable that in the US you can put a patent on the result instead of the solution. 

what i mean is:

problem: how to put a text that says "hello world!"

solution:

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

int main() 
{
    cout << "Hello, World!";
    return 0;
}

result: "Hello, World!" <- patent this

 

then when someone else comes and decide to solve it like this:

#include <iostream>

int main() 
{
    std::cout << "Hello, World!";
    return 0;
}

result: "Hello, World!"

 

Somehow they can claim patent infringement.

 

They can't patent that, and if they can, they usually can't defend it.  In this case hello world would be the equivalent of trying to patent speech.  Say your program was designed to create a new language from specific inputs instead,  now there are many ways to do this just like there are many ways to print hello, world.  But the function is unique, so the method is less important than the function.   In fact we already know there are several ways to do it so the method is virtually irrelevant to the patent. What's important is the function and does that function serve a purpose. 

 

EDIT: @LAwLz, this is another reason why code is not necessary in a patent.   Using different code to achieve the same result undermines the whole point of a patent (to protect IP from clones)

[LAwLz]

On 8/29/2018 at 11:57 AM, mr moose said:

EDIT: @LAwLz, this is another reason why code is not necessary in a patent.   Using different code to achieve the same result undermines the whole point of a patent (to protect IP from clones)

That is not what patents are for.

If someone comes up with a different way of achieving the same result then they should be entitled to that. That's how patents have worked since the concept was invented.

 

Achieving the same result using a different technique has never been breaking patent law before, but now with software patents it does.

 

Patents are legal monopolies for a certain implementation of an invention. That's why patents (although not software patents) have required public disclosure of exactly how it works on a mechanical level. You can not patent a mechanical thing without explicitly describing the intricate details of how it operates. The schematics for a mechanical invention should be likened to the source code of a program.

[mr moose]

57 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That is not what patents are for.

If someone comes up with a different way of achieving the same result then they should be entitled to that. That's how patents have worked since the concept was invented.

 

Achieving the same result using a different technique has never been breaking patent law before, but now with software patents it does.

 

Patents are legal monopolies for a certain implementation of an invention. That's why patents (although not software patents) have required public disclosure of exactly how it works on a mechanical level. You can not patent a mechanical thing without explicitly describing the intricate details of how it operates. The schematics for a mechanical invention should be likened to the source code of a program.

Read the link I posted earlier regarding design patents.

[LAwLz]

On 8/29/2018 at 11:39 AM, mr moose said:

That's not how patents work though, many everyday patents refer to ideas that exist only as a plan, biscuits are an abstract by your definition.  There are many ways to cook biscuits, it's not just the process that you patent, it's the outcome too,  if you don't have an outcome or product at the end then it is abstract.

That has never been the case before software patents.

The outcome was never part of the patent system until software patents appeared. Take locks for example. The patents for locks are all the specific mechanical schematics and designs/forms of the locks and keys. The patents aren't "a system for granting access to an area" (that would be the outcome).

 

And yes, I do think that "biscuits" are too abstract to get a patent for, and so would the patent office.

You need to provide far more details than that to get a patent. For example you can get a patent for a very specific type of biscuit if you provide the recipe as well as detailed instructions on how to recreate them. And yes, that is in fact a requirement for regular patents. People reading the patent should be able to recreate the thing you have patented. That is not the case with software patents because they do not provide the source code (aka, the recipe).

 

 

On 8/29/2018 at 11:39 AM, mr moose said:

1. Not just math, but carefully designed math to achieve a specific result using a specific platform.  Remember that design is also patent-able.

Nope.

Again, software patents are often patents for the output and not the formula. So the whole "carefully designed math" arguments does not hold water since they aren't patenting the "carefully designed" part, just the output. The design of the math (source code) is not part of the patent (the output).

They aren't patenting a specific formula (source code), they are patenting the final number as well as any formula which also results in that same number. It's like patenting the number 3 and then sue anyone who makes a formula which sometimes results in the number 3 being outputted.

 

But that's besides the point. The argument really is if you should be able to patent something which occurs naturally in our world? I don't think so. And before you say source code doesn't occur naturally in nature, remember that every single program ever written, and that will be written, including things like Windows 10, theoretically exists inside Pi.

 

 

On 8/29/2018 at 11:39 AM, mr moose said:

2. sometimes, but that's not a reason or else you could use the same argument to ban torrents, because it leads to piracy.

The difference is that piracy is illegal.

Are you arguing that we should make patent thickening illegal? I am actually all for that.

There is a very big difference between "encouraging something illegal", which we have systems in place to avoid, and "encourage something legal which has a very big detrimental effect on society" that we let run rampant.

Right now nothing is stopping patent thickening. At least not for giant corporations which can afford to file a metric ton of patents. If we had a system in place which punished the practice then I would agree with your comparison, but right now it is nonsensical.

 

On 8/29/2018 at 11:39 AM, mr moose said:

3. That's just one side of the argument, I have already posted enough evidence to show that is at best a heavily disputed issue let alone a fact.

You have posted exactly 0 evidence to support the claim that SOFTWARE patents have any positive effects on the industry whatsoever, much less that they don't have any negative impact.

Please remember that software patents and regular patents are very different concepts and studies of one doesn't necessary hold true for the other.

 

On 8/29/2018 at 11:39 AM, mr moose said:

4. I have already explained why the copyright systems fails software already. copyright has it's limits once something cease to be expressive or artistic.

Can you please link me to where you explained this? From what I remember you just said something along the lines of "if you just use copyright then someone can come up with another way of archiving the same thing", which I don't see any problem with. If people weren't allowed to come up with new ways of achieving the same result then chances are we wouldn't even have computers these days.

 

Patents are meant to reward someone with exclusive rights to their invention. They are not meant to grant the person with exclusive rights to something completely different that someone else came up with.

If you invent a teleporter then by all means, you should own that machine. Ford should not be able to sue you because they have a patent for "way of transporting someone or something from one point to another". The end result of a teleporter and car are the same, you get from point A to point B, but the way of achieving this are completely different and therefore shouldn't be covered by the same patent.

 

 

On 8/29/2018 at 11:39 AM, mr moose said:

5. no, traditional patents also include defining functions not just methods. 

You missed the word ""entirely". Stop with the strawman arguments.

 

On 8/29/2018 at 11:39 AM, mr moose said:

6. that's a flawed concept, if you want to use that logic then you can't patent anything that uses or works with an already existing device.  That's just not a good reason to disallow a patent. 

If the patent is for something which could already be achieved without adding anything to the existing device then I don't see why it should be eligible for patenting. Again, you can't patent sleeping on a ladder, correct? Patenting a kit which converts a ladder into a bed with proper legs and mattresses is fine. Just patenting "sleeping while on a ladder" is not.

You can't patent a way of using an already existing invention.

 

 

On 8/29/2018 at 11:39 AM, mr moose said:

7. So? 

I am surprised that you answered that way, since you often use the "it's used for bad things, so therefore it must be stopped" argument. For example when it comes to encryption or other privacy related issues. If something is heavily abused for harmful activities don't you think reforms are needed to stop the abuse?

 

On 8/29/2018 at 11:39 AM, mr moose said:

8. which one is it?  is it only good for defending your product or is it not worth getting becasue it takes too long?  How can it be only good for the one thing it is designed to do if it takes too long to get making defending your product moot?

Wait, you think software patents exist because people want to defend their products? Ohh geez... The point was that software patents offers little to no legitimate use because they are often granted near the end of the product they are suppose to protect. However, software patents are often about hindering competitors rather than protect your own inventions.

 

On 8/29/2018 at 11:39 AM, mr moose said:

Patents can be for functions not just methods.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/patents

 

So long as they perform a function not previously performed and said function is not obvious.  There is no clause that stipulates ingredients have to be listed, especially  as most software patents will come under design patents.

When applying for a patent, one of the requirements is that:

Quote

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.

 

That is to say, the specifications of a patent has to be so precise and detailed that someone reading it can recreate it. I can not recreate the function which creates the bounce effect on the iPhone. I can create something similar, but without providing the source code I can not recreate the same program, just something fairly close.

That is why I would argue that software patents has to disclose the source code.

 

Actually, I am not sure why you are against having to disclose the source code. If you have a patent for it then you will be protected from copy cats anyway, right? So there is no need to hide the code too.

How many layers of legal protection does a company need? The system is suppose to work by giving inventors a choice. Apply for a patent and make your invention public, or protect it through secrecy. Software patents gives inventors the cake and lets them eat it too, on top of giving them a loaded gun which they can point at pretty much anyone.

 

On 8/29/2018 at 11:39 AM, mr moose said:

Again, ARM don't just own IP and license it, they actually do a low of work updating and maintaining the design of ARM processors, it is a lot more than just licensing.

Are you deliberately missing my points? It genuinely feels like you are.

I am starting to question if you have trouble understanding analogies in general because it's not the first time.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Read the link I posted earlier regarding design patents.

I don't know where you got the idea that software patents are usually design patents, but they aren't. You need to stop saying things you believe are true, but that you haven't actually looked into. It's incredibly frustrating to discuss things with you because you keep doing that.

 

Almost all of the software patents I have read are utility patents. But anecdotal evidence means very little, so I looked into it a bit more and found a legal firm that has written an article about it. Please note that this is how it works in the way the law is written, and interpreted by lawyers. It does not mean that is how it actually works in practice (because the patent system is an utterly broken mess).

 

Quote

Software patents are usually utility patents (instead of design or plant patents). That means they have to qualify as:

• A process
• A machine
• An "article of manufacture"
• A "composition of matter"
• An improvement on an existing utility

A patent lasts for 20 years. After that your software goes into the Common Domain. When you apply for a patent, you have to disclose the invention. That voids other ways you might protect yourself, such as keeping your source code a trade secret.

 

They interpret the law the same way I do.

If you patent some software you forfeit your right to keep the source code hidden. That's not how it works in practice, but it is how it should work in theory.

They also verified my observation that most software patents are utility patents, not design patents.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

remember that every single program ever written, and that will be written, including things like Windows 10, theoretically exists inside Pi.

Sorry, you lost me here.  That would be like saying every single work of Shakespeare "theoretically" exists within a keyboard.  After all, it contains all the letters used to write them.

[LAwLz]

18 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Sorry, you lost me here.  That would be like saying every single work of Shakespeare "theoretically" exists within a keyboard.  After all, it contains all the letters used to write them.

Literary works falls under copyright law and not patent law.

[Jito463]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Literary works falls under copyright law and not patent law.

I'm not talking about law, copyright or patent.  I'm talking about your assertion that every bit of code exists "theoretically" within pi.  Hence, the section of your post that I quoted.

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I'm not talking about law, copyright or patent.  I'm talking about your assertion that every bit of code exists "theoretically" within pi.  Hence, the section of your post that I quoted.

Hypothetically, it does. But we can't pay royalties to abstract ideas so the people that actually do the work to figure this shit out gets rewarded instead.

[LAwLz]

13 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I'm not talking about law, copyright or patent.  I'm talking about your assertion that every bit of code exists "theoretically" within pi.  Hence, the section of your post that I quoted.

Yep, all Shakespeare stories appear inside Pi. So does Harry Potter, and every other written work too.

You "just" have to map the numbers to letters (like ASCII) and find the correct place somewhere inside Pi's infinitely long and non-repeating decimals.

 

Since Pi is infinitely long, and contains random numbers, it will inevitably contain every single thing which can be expressed in numbers, which includes everything you can store on a computer.

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

it will inevitably contain every single thing which can be expressed in numbers, which includes everything you can store on a computer.

To use your favorite saying: Citation needed.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Read the link I posted earlier regarding design patents.

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't know where you got the idea that software patents are usually design patents, but they aren't. You need to stop saying things you believe are true, but that you haven't actually looked into. It's incredibly frustrating to discuss things with you because you keep doing that.

 

Almost all of the software patents I have read are utility patents. But anecdotal evidence means very little, so I looked into it a bit more and found a legal firm that has written an article about it. Please note that this is how it works in the way the law is written, and interpreted by lawyers. It does not mean that is how it actually works in practice (because the patent system is an utterly broken mess).

Worth noting that the Apple bounce patent that I have referenced several times in this thread is a utility patent, not a design patent.

Design patents start with a D such as D670,286 (the "rounded corners" patent). Patent 7,469,381 (the bounce patent) is a utility patent, and you can see this by the lack of the initial D in the patent number.

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

To use your favorite saying: Citation needed.

It's kind of hard to prove and I do not have a sole source for it.

 

However, if you're interested in learning about it I highly recommend looking up "normal numbers" or at least a disjunctive sequence. Pi is widely believed to be a normal number (although it is probably impossible to definitively prove), and as a result of that it will contain all other finite number sequences inside its infinite sequence.

If you want evidence that Pi has an infinite number of non-repeating decimals then here is an article with 7 different mathematical proof for it.

 

While I was looking up sources for this, I stumbled upon a video from Vihart where she actually discuss if Shakespeare appears inside Pi. Here is the link:

 

 

Anyway, we're kind of getting off-track here.

[Drak3]

Just now, LAwLz said:

It's kind of hard to prove and I do not have a sole source for it.

So, effectively, you're just talking a load of bullshit.

[LAwLz]

26 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

So, effectively, you're just talking a load of bullshit.

No, and I strongly recommend you read some of the links I posted. There is a very big difference between "talking a load of bullshit" and "this is what we believe based on the evidence we got, but it's not 100% conclusive". 

 

Please don't be like the creationists which claim evolution is bullshit because "it's just a theory". 

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I strongly recommend you read some of the links I post

I did. Hypothetical bullshit at best.

 

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Please don't be like the creationists which claim evolution is bullshit because "it's just a theory".

Don't worry, I won't.

 

Because it isn't a theory. It's, at best, an untested hypothesis.

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, Drak3 said:

I did. Hypothetical bullshit at best.

 

Don't worry, I won't.

 

Because it isn't a theory. It's, at best, an untested hypothesis.

How is it "hypothetical bullshit"? We know that at least one normal number exists, and the evidence we got so far suggests that pi is one too. 

 

You really do sound just like one of those science deniers. 

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

How is it "hypothetical bullshit"?

It's untested.

 

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

the evidence we got so far suggests that pi is one too. 

There is no evidence that supports ypur claim. Only hypothesis and speculation.

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You really do sound just like one of those science deniers.

And you sound like a "science evangelist", but this is getting dangerously close to where the mods will close it, not to mention it has zero to do with the original post.

[mr moose]

@LAwLz  the problem you have with all this is that you cannot accept where a software product is a just that, it is a product.  It is the result of hard work and it does a specific job,  Pointing to some shit patents doesn't negate the need for IP protection for products.   That is why design patents exist, that is why software is granted patents.

 

Again, the reason many don't patent the specific code is because you can use different code to get the exact same outcome.   Just rephrasing yourself to make the same assertions while accusing me of straw manning and not addressing that point will not change that fact.

[LAwLz]

10 hours ago, Drak3 said:

It's untested.

 

There is no evidence that supports ypur claim. Only hypothesis and speculation.

The first ~2 million digits has been tested and follows the characteristics of a normal number.

We can keep doing tests for more digits but we will never get 100% confirmation of it, since we're dealing with an infinite number. Someone can always say "yeah, but what about the next number?".

It's like with evolution where we have a theory and the evidence we got points towards it being correct, but we can never be 100% certain since we don't have a time machine and can see it happening.

Don't dismiss things as "only speculation" when we have scientific observations and a theory which doesn't have any holes in it yet.

 

 

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

@LAwLz  the problem you have with all this is that you cannot accept where a software product is a just that, it is a product.  It is the result of hard work and it does a specific job,  Pointing to some shit patents doesn't negate the need for IP protection for products.   That is why design patents exist, that is why software is granted patents.

 

Again, the reason many don't patent the specific code is because you can use different code to get the exact same outcome.   Just rephrasing yourself to make the same assertions while accusing me of straw manning and not addressing that point will not change that fact.

I have no problem admitting that software is a product and it requires hard work.

What I have a problem with is that they can patent it, and on top of that that they can keep the source code hidden after patenting it.

 

No other type of invention allows you to have a patent for it, while simultaneously keeping how it works a trade secret. No other patents.

Our entire modern society is built upon the fact that people were allowed to come up with new ways of achieving the same things, and thus avoiding patents. We would most likely be tens if not hundreds of years behind if we could patent problems rather than specific solutions (which is what software patents does).

Wanna know what the patent office said when people were worried "someone could just change a few things and copy us!" before? They were told to suck it up. They were not getting a patent unless they were very specific to the point where someone could recreate their invention, and that the patent were specific in what it was about. I know I keep getting back to locks but it's because one of my clients is a world leading lock manufacturer, and they file patents for their design all the time. If it weren't for the fact that patents allowed other manufacturers to solve the same issue (making secure locks) using different methods then we might only have had a single lock manufacturer today. But since the patents only protected a very specific design of the lock and key, other manufacturers could come up with other solutions.

 

 

Here are two keys, both of which have patented designs. This is allowed because regular patents allows for others to solve the same issues through different means/ideas/designs. Software patents don't. Both of these keys solve the same issue, unlocking a door. Functionality and outcome wise they are identical. However, their design and how it works "under the hood" are slightly different and therefore neither of them infringe on each other's patents.

The source code is the cuts/teeth of the keys, and that's what should be protected. You can never patent the outcome of a key, only the specific mechanical design.

 

 

 

Which system do you think sounds the best for society.

One where ASSA or KABA owns the patent for "granting access to an area using a device", which would make them the sole owners of the idea of locks. Nobody else could manufacture a lock without infringing on their patent.

Or the system where they can only patent the very specific designs which are fairly easy to work around for someone who wants to.

 

The former is what we got in the software world today, and the latter is what we got for every other patent.

 

 

 

If I write a program that does something, I should be entitled to having the sole rights to it. And I do, because of copyright and the fact that I can keep the source code a secret.

Those two 2 very strong tools for protecting the specific thing I made. I made the program, and those two protect my program.

The problem with software patents (which is not a problem with any other type of patent) is that all of a sudden I own the rights to the result, rather than the program I made.

 

 

I don't get why you're always favoring giving more power to companies.

Why do companies need both a complete monopoly on an outcome, and also keep it secret how they achieved it? Isn't copyright and patents enough protecting for their inventions already? Why allow them to have the source code hidden as well? Why do they need 3 separate legal protections (it's illegal to reverse engineer software if it breaks DRM) when a single one would be enough to protect the thing they created?

 

 

Anyway, countries are starting to realize what a load of bullshit software patents are and I hope more of them follows the steps of France and New Zealand. It would have a major benefit to society. Hopefully Australia will make a proper statement on it too, rather than just keep shooting down software patent cases that goes to court. Would save a bit of time and money.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The first ~2 million digits has been tested and follows the characteristics of a normal number.

We can keep doing tests for more digits but we will never get 100% confirmation of it, since we're dealing with an infinite number. Someone can always say "yeah, but what about the next number?".

It's like with evolution where we have a theory and the evidence we got points towards it being correct, but we can never be 100% certain since we don't have a time machine and can see it happening.

Don't dismiss things as "only speculation" when we have scientific observations and a theory which doesn't have any holes in it yet.

 

 

I have no problem admitting that software is a product and it requires hard work.

What I have a problem with is that they can patent it, and on top of that that they can keep the source code hidden after patenting it.

If they can;t patent it then they can't protect it, the best they can do is stop people from using the code verbatim.

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No other type of invention allows you to have a patent for it, while simultaneously keeping how it works a trade secret. No other patents.

No other products have the unique issue of being able to be reworded or duplicated as easily as software.    You can make an almost identical OS to windows using a linux kernal and that wouldn't violate copyright because you used a completely different code.  There is a reason many lawsuits regarding games copying each other fail or don't make it to court. 

 

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Our entire modern society is built upon the fact that people were allowed to come up with new ways of achieving the same things, and thus avoiding patents. We would most likely be tens if not hundreds of years behind if we could patent problems rather than specific solutions (which is what software patents does).

Software patents aren't specifically patenting problems, they are patenting a program that solves a problem. I know you don;t see the difference but there is one.

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If I write a program that does something, I should be entitled to having the sole rights to it. And I do, because of copyright and the fact that I can keep the source code a secret.

Except I can right a programs that looks and behaves exactly the same using different code and your copyright now means shit. As I said before, copyright is for artistic expression not process.

 

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Those two 2 very strong tools for protecting the specific thing I made. I made the program, and those two protect my program.

except they are not very strong at all, they fall down as soon as you demonstrate you used different code to achieve the same result.

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The problem with software patents (which is not a problem with any other type of patent) is that all of a sudden I own the rights to the result, rather than the program I made.

Nope, you own the rights to the process in it's uniqueness.  Someone else can still solve the same problem they just have to do it a different way.

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

I don't get why you're always favoring giving more power to companies.

Why do companies need both a complete monopoly on an outcome, and also keep it secret how they achieved it? Isn't copyright and patents enough protecting for their inventions already? Why allow them to have the source code hidden as well? Why do they need 3 separate legal protections (it's illegal to reverse engineer software if it breaks DRM) when a single one would be enough to protect the thing they created?

Because whether you like it or not until we reach a point in our world where peer networks and OSS underpin the economy and technological growth, we still need the stability of the 20th century process.  

 

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

Anyway, countries are starting to realize what a load of bullshit software patents are and I hope more of them follows the steps of France and New Zealand. It would have a major benefit to society. Hopefully Australia will make a proper statement on it too, rather than just keep shooting down software patent cases that goes to court. Would save a bit of time and money.

I've already linked to the Australian high courts ruling on this, our patent laws are rather well defined, not too sure what you would consider a proper statement is, suffice to say I am confident that more highly educated people than you or I without the idealistic bias have reviewed the situation.

 

[LAwLz]

Just now, mr moose said:

If they can;t patent it then they can't protect it, the best they can do is stop people from using the code verbatim.

Are you saying that copyright offers no protection?
Are you saying that keeping the source code a secret offers no protection?

 

Both of them do. The thing that patents offer them is complete monopoly on all the ways of achieving something, even the ones the patent holder didn't think of.

I think they should only have the rights to what they thought of, not what someone else thought of that achieves the same thing, maybe in a better way even.

 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No other products have the unique issue of being able to be reworded or duplicated as easily as software.    You can make an almost identical OS to windows using a linux kernal and that wouldn't violate copyright because you used a completely different code.  There is a reason many lawsuits regarding games copying each other fail or don't make it to court. 

First of all, I think that's a great thing. If someone comes up with a different way of achieving something then I think they should be entitled to that. That's how patents have always worked (see the lock example I edited into my previous post). Do you really want to live in a world where PUBG has monopoly on battle royal games? Because that's what you're advocating for.

 

Secondly, that would in fact violate copyright. Have you not been following the Oracle vs Google lawsuit? The court found that none of Oracles patents had been infringed so the entire case revolved around copyright infringement, and Oracle won. It is not allowed, according to copyright law, to copy things such as API call functions even if your "behind the scenes" implementation is different.

 

Again:

20 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You need to stop saying things you believe are true, but that you haven't actually looked into. It's incredibly frustrating to discuss things with you because you keep doing that.

 

 

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Software patents aren't specifically patenting problems, they are patenting a program that solves a problem. I know you don;t see the difference but there is one.

Wrong.

If the patent was for a specific program that solves a problem, then solving that problem would be allowed through different means, but it isn't.

Take the bounce patent as an example. The program in this case is the specific code which creates the bounce effect. The way the code is written is the solution. However, like with most software patents, Apple applied and got granted a monopoly on all different solutions which solves the problem. All programs which behaves in a somewhat similar way infringes on that specific patent.

Two programs can do the same thing.

 

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Except I can right a programs that looks and behaves exactly the same using different code and your copyright now means shit. As I said before, copyright is for artistic expression not process.

1) That actually depends. Again, refer to the Oracle vs Google case.

2) If you can write a program that does the same thing, but in a different way then I believe you should be allowed to do that. Again, this is how patents have works all throughout history, and the reason why we have things like different key and lock designs. And before you say it is easier to copy a program, it isn't. Copying a lock and then changing a few things is trivial. Same for a lot of patented things. Copying a program that you don't have the source code for can however be incredibly difficult. Just look at WINE and console emulators for examples of that.

 

Hell, x264 is extremely well written and optimized out of the ass. Not even Intel and Adobe, with their massive resources, are able to get even close to the quality and performance it achieves, and they can even view the source code of x264 to examine how it works.

So it's difficult to achieve the same quality and performance of something in a different way even if you got the source code to read.

 

 

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

except they are not very strong at all, they fall down as soon as you demonstrate you used different code to achieve the same result.

Again, why do you think it is bad that people have the freedom to achieve the same result using different tools and methods? This is how patents has always worked, until software patents became a thing.

Also, you are denying all the hard work the other programmer might have put in to develop a similar program. Let's take the Kaba and ASSA example again. Do you not believe that Kaba should be entitled to their design just because ASSA thought and got something vaguely similar patented first? I think they should both be entitled to their designs because while they achieve the same thing, they way they do it in are very different.

 

 

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Nope, you own the rights to the process in it's uniqueness.  Someone else can still solve the same problem they just have to do it a different way.

The process is the source code. The process are the instructions which lead to a result. The only way for a software patent to be a patent for the "process in it's uniqueness" would be for the patent to only apply to a specific piece of source code.

You can't say "bounce at the end of a list" is a patent for a process and its uniqueness when the same result could be achieved using a completely different process, yet that new process still infringes on the patent.

Writing a different program which outputs the same thing (in this case graphics) is in fact solving the same program in a different way.

 

I think I understand where you are misunderstanding me and software patents now.

You think of the problem as "informing the user they have reached the end of the list", and then think of "make the screen bounce" as the unique process to solve that problem.

The way I think of the problem is "calculate and display a bounce on the screen", and the solution is the code that someone programmed.

The way I think of it is how software patents are written, and it's how things like mathematical problems and formulas are defined as well. It's how programming assignments are written. When you had in the solution to a math assignment you don't just hand in the answer. If you do that at any high education you will fail that test. Same with programming.

I think our differing views come from the fact that we have different backgrounds and jobs.

 

 

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Because whether you like it or not until we reach a point in our world where peer networks and OSS underpin the economy and technological growth, we still need the stability of the 20th century process.  

Again, some countries has already started removing software patents or dramatically weakening them, and those countries have not collapsed because of it.

Do you feel afraid that the very weak patent protection for software in Australia is a threat to your economical and technological growth?

I strongly believe economical and technological growth would accelerate if software patents were abolished, and as you might have read in some of my earlier links I am definitely not alone in believing that (please please PLEASE note that it is specifically about software patents, all your links about patents in general are not relevant to the conversation).

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Are you saying that copyright offers no protection?
Are you saying that keeping the source code a secret offers no protection?

 

Both of them do. The thing that patents offer them is complete monopoly on all the ways of achieving something, even the ones the patent holder didn't think of.

I think they should only have the rights to what they thought of, not what someone else thought of that achieves the same thing, maybe in a better way even.

 

First of all, I think that's a great thing. If someone comes up with a different way of achieving something then I think they should be entitled to that. That's how patents have always worked (see the lock example I edited into my previous post). Do you really want to live in a world where PUBG has monopoly on battle royal games? Because that's what you're advocating for.

 

Secondly, that would in fact violate copyright. Have you not been following the Oracle vs Google lawsuit? The court found that none of Oracles patents had been infringed so the entire case revolved around copyright infringement, and Oracle won. It is not allowed, according to copyright law, to copy things such as API call functions even if your "behind the scenes" implementation is different.

 

Again:

 

 

Wrong.

If the patent was for a specific program that solves a problem, then solving that problem would be allowed through different means, but it isn't.

Take the bounce patent as an example. The program in this case is the specific code which creates the bounce effect. The way the code is written is the solution. However, like with most software patents, Apple applied and got granted a monopoly on all different solutions which solves the problem. All programs which behaves in a somewhat similar way infringes on that specific patent.

Two programs can do the same thing.

 

1) That actually depends. Again, refer to the Oracle vs Google case.

2) If you can write a program that does the same thing, but in a different way then I believe you should be allowed to do that. Again, this is how patents have works all throughout history, and the reason why we have things like different key and lock designs. And before you say it is easier to copy a program, it isn't. Copying a lock and then changing a few things is trivial. Same for a lot of patented things. Copying a program that you don't have the source code for can however be incredibly difficult. Just look at WINE and console emulators for examples of that.

 

Hell, x264 is extremely well written and optimized out of the ass. Not even Intel and Adobe, with their massive resources, are able to get even close to the quality and performance it achieves, and they can even view the source code of x264 to examine how it works.

So it's difficult to achieve the same quality and performance of something in a different way even if you got the source code to read.

 

 

Again, why do you think it is bad that people have the freedom to achieve the same result using different tools and methods? This is how patents has always worked, until software patents became a thing.

Also, you are denying all the hard work the other programmer might have put in to develop a similar program. Let's take the Kaba and ASSA example again. Do you not believe that Kaba should be entitled to their design just because ASSA thought and got something vaguely similar patented first? I think they should both be entitled to their designs because while they achieve the same thing, they way they do it in are very different.

 

 

The process is the source code. The process are the instructions which lead to a result. The only way for a software patent to be a patent for the "process in it's uniqueness" would be for the patent to only apply to a specific piece of source code.

You can't say "bounce at the end of a list" is a patent for a process and its uniqueness when the same result could be achieved using a completely different process, yet that new process still infringes on the patent.

Writing a different program which outputs the same thing (in this case graphics) is in fact solving the same program in a different way.

 

I think I understand where you are misunderstanding me and software patents now.

You think of the problem as "informing the user they have reached the end of the list", and then think of "make the screen bounce" as the unique process to solve that problem.

The way I think of the problem is "calculate and display a bounce on the screen", and the solution is the code that someone programmed.

The way I think of it is how software patents are written, and it's how things like mathematical problems and formulas are defined as well. It's how programming assignments are written. When you had in the solution to a math assignment you don't just hand in the answer. If you do that at any high education you will fail that test. Same with programming.

I think our differing views come from the fact that we have different backgrounds and jobs.

 

 

Again, some countries has already started removing software patents or dramatically weakening them, and those countries have not collapsed because of it.

Do you feel afraid that the very weak patent protection for software in Australia is a threat to your economical and technological growth?

I strongly believe economical and technological growth would accelerate if software patents were abolished, and as you might have read in some of my earlier links I am definitely not alone in believing that (please please PLEASE note that it is specifically about software patents, all your links about patents in general are not relevant to the conversation).

I have already made clear what I need to, I am not going to repeat myself. 

 

Suffice to say my links were indeed relevant and the fact you think they weren't serves to prove you didn't read them.

 

But to finish off here's a quote:

 

Quote

The Full Court referred to a number of previous Australian decisions confirming the patentability of software12 and, together with NRDC, State Street and AT&T, considered a common element to be a component that was physically affected or a change in state or information in a part of a machine, which could all be regarded as physical effects.13

and

Quote

Patentable subject matter was to be determined by the application of flexible principles, and is not to be fettered by contrived constraints or a strict test.9

...

The Full Court found that in both the US and Australia, the courts had adopted a broad approach to determining patentable subject matter in order to adapt to new technology and inventions,

The High court does not want to tie a product down to a definition that cannot be applied in context.  This is inline with many legal descions and policies.

 

And this is from a ruling that actually dismissed a patent application as being legal because it was a method that did not result in a physical effect.

 

You cannot get much more succinct then that for a condition on patenting software.

 

http://dcc.com/services/patents/federal-court-reviews-patentability-of-business-methods-in-australia/

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

I have already made clear what I need to, I am not going to repeat myself. 

You're acting like a child. You can't just keep saying "I've addressed" and then don't further explain your arguments or come with counter arguments.

I feel like you aren't responding to even half of my arguments. For example I have made comparisons to other types of patents such as locks and you completely ignore all of that. I address all your points and you come back with a counter argument for one, and then count the ones you ignored as wins or whatever that don't have to be addressed again.

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Suffice to say my links were indeed relevant and the fact you think they weren't serves to prove you didn't read them.

You have posted quite a few, but I specifically said the ones which only addresses patents in general are irrelevant, because regular patents and software patents are two very different things.

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

And this is from a ruling that actually dismissed a patent application as being legal because it was a method that did not result in a physical effect.

 

You cannot get much more succinct then that for a condition on patenting software.

 

http://dcc.com/services/patents/federal-court-reviews-patentability-of-business-methods-in-australia/

You might want to read that a bit more carefully. For the other people reading this thread, please note that the ruling only applies to Australia and not for example New Zealand.

The article is also 12 years old and quite a bit has happened in that time, such as a redesign of the patentability test for business methods in 2010 (4 years after the DCC article was written).

 

But more to the point. The ruling that DCC article refers to explicitly says that if software is used inside a machine and makes the machine create some physical effect, then it can be patented. However, if it is just an abstract idea, intellectual information or a scheme then it can not be patented.

In the Grant case of 2006, the patent owner argued that the change of state of the memory in the computer was a physical effect. However, that argument was thrown out of court and the patent office made a public statement essentially saying that anything resulting from just being a computer does not fulfill the physical effect requirement. So something being displayed on the screen does not count as a physical effect. It has to be for example a program doing something to control let's say a robot, or car.

 

Here is the statement from the Australian patent office:

Quote

Insignificant post-solution activity has been taken to include steps such as the inputting, storage or displaying of data. I take from this aspect of US law however only confirmation of the unremarkable conclusion that one must consider whether the subject matter of a claim considered as a whole falls within the scope of patentable subject matter and that this cannot be achieved merely by pointing to some physical effect or transformation that, while present in the claimed method, does not alter its fundamental character. In applying the decision in Grant I therefore consider that the “concrete effect or phenomenon or manifestation or transformation” referred to must be one that is significant both in that it is concrete but also that it is central to the purpose or operation of the claimed process or otherwise arises from the combination of steps of the method in a substantial way. Consequently while the step of building a house involves a concrete physical effect it is peripheral to the method of acquiring a house and indeed could hardly be said to characterize the subject matter of the method such that it is considered an artificially created state of affairs. I consider the same to apply to a business scheme implemented in some part by computer and do not believe the patentability of such a method can arise solely from the fact that, in a general sense, it is implemented in or with the assistance of a computer or utilizes some part a computer or other physical device in a incidental way.

 

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You're acting like a child. You can't just keep saying "I've addressed" and then don't further explain your arguments or come with counter arguments.

I can if I have addressed them.  this discussion is just going around in circles.