don't get too excited
don't get too excited
Posted Jun 19, 2014 19:59 UTC (Thu) by paragw (guest, #45306)In reply to: don't get too excited by Cyberax
Parent article: US Supreme Court rules against software patents
> It rules against patents of the form "do these steps that are already well-known in the field, but do them on a computer".
So isn't slide to unlock exactly that? We have known how to slide a bolt to unlock in real life, Apple's doing just the same on a computer.
> they are not implementations of abstract ideas. Rather they are 'inventions' that happen to use computers.
Again the invention was already known - they merely made the computer do it.
Posted Jun 20, 2014 0:54 UTC (Fri)
by rahvin (guest, #16953)
[Link] (16 responses)
Posted Jun 22, 2014 20:43 UTC (Sun)
by Seegras (guest, #20463)
[Link] (14 responses)
What??? Which complete moron granted that? It's more than 3000 years old!
http://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/patents-on-bronze-age-te...
Probably this is just the way of the world to tell me, that ALL patents are rubbish, and the concept of patents itself is just some blatant rent-seeking effort which should have been erased from this planet in the 18th century.
Posted Jun 24, 2014 10:01 UTC (Tue)
by Tjebbe (guest, #34055)
[Link] (13 responses)
They are, and they should.
A few countries have had a some bright moments in history and abolished patents (the Netherlands, for instance, but they later reintroduced them. I can only guess because of international pressure).
Posted Jun 24, 2014 17:11 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (12 responses)
Posted Jun 24, 2014 17:16 UTC (Tue)
by niner (subscriber, #26151)
[Link]
Posted Jun 24, 2014 18:17 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (10 responses)
So pharmaceutical propaganda would have you believe ...
I think the evidence is that even there they do more harm than good ...
Cheers,
Posted Jun 24, 2014 19:31 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (9 responses)
Here's an example. This drug ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofosbuvir ) costs about $150 to manufacture. Yet its retail price is about $80000.
You'd think the markup on each bottle of pills is $79850? Wrong, it's only about $20000 - about 30% of price. The rest goes towards financing the expenses incurred during the drug development.
The problem is, it took around 5 billions of dollars to discover and test this drug. And it's only getting worse with new drugs.
So what are your suggestions?
Posted Jun 24, 2014 21:13 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (8 responses)
Stop spending millions on developing minor variations on drugs that are about to go out of patent?
Actually STARTING to spend some money on sorely needed drugs for illnesses that don't affect westerners?
Or reducing the ability of the food manufacturers to sucker/advertise us into eating unhealthy diets (it's looking more and more certain that the low fat industry has got cause and effect the wrong way round - the diet industry is the *cause*, and obesity is the *effect*)?
And you said that things are only getting worse - maybe we should try and reduce this obsession (driven by the American legal industry) that everything "must be safe". LIFE ISN'T SAFE!!!
Do a *real* risk analysis and allow dangerous drugs for serious illnesses to be trialled much more quickly and with far fewer self-defeating safeguards - if I stand a 10% chance of dying from the illness, and a 1% chance of dying from the drug, guess which one I'm going to choose!
And lastly, maybe allow companies to carve out research niches as "protected areas" - if a company does "blue-sky" research into a drug family, then they get exclusive rights for say 10 years after the drug gets FDA (or equivalent) approval. More to the point, other companies aren't allowed to copy-cat research into similar drugs - they have to carve out their own niche.
But at the end of the day, while your figures may be impressive, you still haven't provided any evidence that that research is value for money. All the evidence says that, even measured in $Billions, most pharma research isn't! Okay, sofosbir may be a completely new drug (which would be protected under my "carve out a niche" rules), but equally (the wikipedia article gives no clues) it could just be a minor variant on an existing drug.
Cheers,
Posted Jun 24, 2014 21:26 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (7 responses)
Yet it still took more than 5 billion to develop this drug. It's actually considered cheap these days for new drugs. Lots of companies spend more money without any results.
> Do a *real* risk analysis and allow dangerous drugs for serious illnesses to be trialled much more quickly and with far fewer self-defeating safeguards - if I stand a 10% chance of dying from the illness, and a 1% chance of dying from the drug, guess which one I'm going to choose!
It still doesn't help a lot. Clinical tests are not just a formality to get an approval - a lot of drugs (50% is a commonly cited number) fail during the tests.
> And lastly, maybe allow companies to carve out research niches as "protected areas" - if a company does "blue-sky" research into a drug family, then they get exclusive rights for say 10 years after the drug gets FDA (or equivalent) approval.
> But at the end of the day, while your figures may be impressive, you still haven't provided any evidence that that research is value for money. All the evidence says that, even measured in $Billions, most pharma research isn't!
The amount of money spent on 'useless' research is pretty much zero. Almost all of the R&D is spent on serious diseases. And pharma companies actually spend more on R&D than just about any other industry.
Posted Jun 25, 2014 12:19 UTC (Wed)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 25, 2014 14:29 UTC (Wed)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link] (1 responses)
I believe the US-style drugs advertising setup is about getting someone who's on your competitor's drug (or a generic drug) to pester their doctor for a prescription for your New! Innovative! Shiny! (still in patent) drug. Some other countries (my own among them) prohibit pharmaceutical companies from advertising their prescription-only drugs to the general public.
Posted Jun 25, 2014 14:32 UTC (Wed)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
Posted Jun 25, 2014 22:07 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (3 responses)
Actually, it isn't. Or rather, the problem is that the protection granted by current patents is pretty poor - if your patent lasts 17 years from publication, and FDA trials take 15 years, then your protected period is 2 years ...
> Can you provide actual examples of pharma research? I do, since we work with drug discovery companies.
Not off the top of my head. But I have a strong personal interest in this field, and all the stuff I've seen says that the majority of Pharma R&D is minor variations on old drugs. Oh - and I get the impression you are in Eastern Europe? The proportion of R&D spent on blue-sky research is much higher in Europe that it is in America, as far as I can make out ...
And if you work with drug discovery companies, does that mean you're being fed a filtered view? Or do you personally actively pick up on anything you come across in the specialist or general media?
One of my favourite examples - aspirin. Which, because it's LONG out of patent, has only recently made a comeback as a drug for treating heart attacks, despite its proven ability to save lives and aid recovery. If your first heart attack kills you, it's not much use, true. But many (30-40%) of heart attacks follow a double-whammy pattern, a minor initial attack and a fatal big one several hours later. Take aspirin after the first attack and the second never happens. And your chances of full recovery from the first attack are much enhanced.
And, following the antics of NICE (the UK drug prescribing authority), it certainly seems as though there is an awful lot of anti-generic pressure in the industry as a whole. NICE has a habit of pushing for generics (not surprisingly) and there is a massive pushback. That said, my wife is chronically ill, and we make a point of requesting specific drugs - that happen to be patented. Not because we believe patented to be better, but generics are subtly different and have been widely reported as causing havoc with the drugs regime. It's change we don't want, not being pro/anti generics. The big problem with generics is that every time you get a new supply of drugs, the specific version can change with all the subtle differences that implies :-(
Cheers,
Posted Jun 25, 2014 22:25 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
> Not off the top of my head. But I have a strong personal interest in this field, and all the stuff I've seen says that the majority of Pharma R&D is minor variations on old drugs.
Sometimes companies foray into areas covered with existing drugs and most of the time it ends badly. The most notable example are anti-blood-clotting drugs - there are no new drugs after tens of billions of dollars spent on their development.
>Oh - and I get the impression you are in Eastern Europe?
>The proportion of R&D spent on blue-sky research is much higher in Europe that it is in America, as far as I can make out ...
Posted Jun 26, 2014 10:30 UTC (Thu)
by roc (subscriber, #30627)
[Link]
Hmm. What about rivaroxaban? That's been getting regulatory approval within the last five years; do you not classify that as "new"?
Posted Jun 26, 2014 10:47 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
The only real *new* drug is Levodopa, which was discovered in the 1960s. To the best of my knowledge ALL of the long-term drugs for Parkinsons are variants on it. But Levodopa is now deprecated (because it's out of patent ...)
And on this particular example I have first hand experience :-(
Cheers,
Posted Jun 22, 2014 20:47 UTC (Sun)
by Seegras (guest, #20463)
[Link]
Ah, by the way, [citation needed]
Posted Jun 20, 2014 6:35 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (31 responses)
Of course, slide switch a novel device so the patent might be rejected on these grounds. And this case also doesn't say anything about "ON A COMPUTER!!!" loophole for concrete devices.
Posted Jun 20, 2014 16:25 UTC (Fri)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link] (30 responses)
Software describes the desired relationship between the inputs and the outputs--it's always a representation of the goal, never an implementation. A particular physical device which implemented the relationships described by the software would not be abstract. However, when the device consists of a general-purpose computer, that is simply using an existing device for the purpose it was designed for: turning physical state into numerical inputs, applying the software to those inputs, and turning the outputs back into physical state. The combination of computer and software is concrete, but also obvious.
Posted Jun 20, 2014 16:50 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (28 responses)
Argument that software is pure math doesn't have merit from the courts' point of view. For example, you can define physical objects as a set of data points and then print them on 3D printers. That doesn't give you a 'get out of jail free' card to print patented objects.
Posted Jun 20, 2014 17:53 UTC (Fri)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link] (4 responses)
From the point of view of a self-interested patent attorney, all patents are valid. The only guaranteed winners in patent litigation are the lawyers, so the more patents the better. Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees. This ruling explicitly states that an abstract concept "implemented on a computer" or "stored on a hard drive" is still an abstract concept, and not patent-eligible. A simulation is nothing more or less than a set of mathematical formulas defining relationships between mathematical objects; it doesn't get much more abstract than that.
> For example, you can define physical objects as a set of data points and then print them on 3D printers. That doesn't give you a 'get out of jail free' card to print patented objects.
You're glossing over the distinction between a design and an actual, physical object. The patented objects are physical, not just an abstract set of data points. The design (in STL or g-code or similar) is abstract. You don't patent the blueprints, you patent the thing you build from the blueprints. You can infringe on a patent by creating an object with a 3D printer, but simply modeling the object on a computer (or on paper) would not infringe. A 3D printer takes an abstract design and uses it as instructions to turn filament or powder into a physical object, much like a computer takes abstract software and uses it to turn physical inputs into physical outputs.
Posted Jun 20, 2014 18:18 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
Slide-to-unlock software switch is a physical object and so it's patentable. It even uses a specialized input interface (touchscreen). You need better reasons why it's not patentable.
>You can infringe on a patent by creating an object with a 3D printer, but simply modeling the object on a computer (or on paper) would not infringe.
However, you are not free to produce and sell actual devices with it.
Posted Jun 20, 2014 18:29 UTC (Fri)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link] (1 responses)
That doesn't even begin to make sense. It's software--you said so yourself--ergo it isn't a physical object. It's a simulation, a mathematical model of the relationships between the various parts of a physical device.
> It's also true with slide-to-unlock. You are free to develop 'blueprints' (source code) for it. ... However, you are not free to produce and sell actual devices with it.
At least you agree that no patent can prevent you from developing the software. Similarly, patents would also not prevent you from selling the blueprints, so you are free to both develop the software and distribute it to others.
The court specifically ruled that "abstract concept on a computer" is still an abstract concept and thus not patent-eligible. That means you can't claim simply running the software on a general-purpose computer. Ergo, anyone is free to develop software, distribute it, and run it on a computer, or allow others to do so. That pretty much covers everything relevant to software patents.
Posted Jun 20, 2014 18:39 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
BTW, I'm firmly against software patents. But it helps knowing the enemy.
> At least you agree that no patent can prevent you from developing the software.
> Similarly, patents would also not prevent you from selling the blueprints, so you are free to both develop the software and distribute it to others.
Posted Jun 21, 2014 19:18 UTC (Sat)
by xtifr (guest, #143)
[Link]
Posted Jun 20, 2014 18:17 UTC (Fri)
by rahvin (guest, #16953)
[Link] (20 responses)
The biggest problem I see for patents going forward is that it's going to be pretty easy to show that almost all software patents are patents on the abstract idea itself (with a few exceptions). Almost none of the software patents I've every looked at are patenting a specific method, they are patenting the idea itself, not the implementation. Very few ever show the code that would be necessary for it to a patent on a specific implementation rather than the abstract idea itself.
For the Apple slide to unlock patent to be valid IMO it would need to be a patent on the very specific implementation including the code itself. Without the specific implementation details it's a patent on the abstract idea of a 300 year old switch on a computer. In the apple case Apple claims patents on slide to unlock software switches on other phones, even though how it's implemented is completely different (different code). The different implementations could be drastically different to the point of being a different method altogether, so when Apple claims it violates their patent without implementation details they are pointing out that they have claimed the idea itself.
This is one of the main points the anti-software patent groups have been trying to point out. That is that the 'on a computer' in most patents is just patenting an idea but claiming the specific implementation is the "on a computer" part. Not a specific computer, but all general purpose computing systems. There is nothing specific about that. And I believe this ruling is going to force the courts to find that most software patents are nothing more than abstract ideas.
Posted Jun 20, 2014 18:36 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (19 responses)
The court has ruled that simply taking an abstract idea and putting it on a computer does not make a patentable invention. The key here is that the idea _in_ _itself_ is not patentable.
So a system for hedging bets ON A COMPUTER!!! is not patentable because the idea of hedging bets is itself abstract. But a sliding switch is a patentable object (even though its patent has expired long ago) and its implementation on a computer is still considered novel.
Posted Jun 20, 2014 20:18 UTC (Fri)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link] (18 responses)
There is no such thing as "a sliding switch implemented on a computer". "Cyberspace" isn't a real place; it's an abstraction. Your computer does not contain a pocket universe behind the screen where virtual objects like sliding switches live. I blame all those sci-fi stories about immersive virtual reality; they give people the wrong idea about how computers actually work, and encourage reasoning by analogy. Analogies make useful illustrations but terrible arguments.
A sliding switch is a physical device with actual moving parts. The particular arrangement of physical parts needed to implement a switch is the subject of the patent. The closest you can get to that on a computer is a mathematical model or blueprint, neither of which is patent-eligible.
Including a computer as a component of some machine or manufacturing process does not render the entire machine or process patent-ineligible, and the court was careful to avoid saying that it did. However, infringement would consist in duplicating the entire machine or process, not just the software running on a computer. In essence, one should treat the computer/software combination as a black box. We don't care about what's inside, just that it plays the designated role in the overall design.
Posted Jun 20, 2014 20:46 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (1 responses)
Ok, Got that. Of course it does! If we want to look on the computer/software then sliding bolt is basically the same as real, physical bolt. It looks like a physical object did (or at least close enough), it behaves like a physical object (at least it tries too), so why couldn't we treat it as a physical object in a cyberspace? Basically the question is: what separates bolt on the iPhone screen from physical bolt patentened 300 years ago if we treat "computer/software combination as a black box"? They are not completely identical but that's because one is done from metal alloy and other is done from shapes and textures. But that's the difference between cyberspace and real space, nothing more, nothing less.
Posted Jun 20, 2014 21:53 UTC (Fri)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link]
I'm not quite sure how seriously I should take a comment trying to claim that an abstract concept and a physical object are equivalent. That's rather like seeing no difference between a real object and a photograph of the object.
> It looks like a physical object did (or at least close enough), it behaves like a physical object (at least it tries too), so why couldn't we treat it as a physical object in a cyberspace?
Your idea of "close enough" isn't very demanding if you think a pattern of RGB pixels on a flat touchscreen "looks like" or "behaves like" a physical object. From one point of view, perhaps, and only if you don't look very closely or try to interact with it as you would a physical object. The means of interaction are somewhat familiar (apply pressure and slide your finger to change the state), but the similarity ends there. What you're interacting with is the touchscreen, a physical object in its own right; the slider is just an illusion, and a very shallow one at that.
> Basically the question is: what separates bolt on the iPhone screen from physical bolt patentened 300 years ago if we treat "computer/software combination as a black box"?
Well, one is a physical bolt, and the other (sans the black box) mainly consists of a touchscreen which can digitize arbitrary 2D input and output arbitrary video. It might be better to ask what they have in common.
> They are not completely identical but that's because one is done from metal alloy and other is done from shapes and textures. But that's the difference between cyberspace and real space, nothing more, nothing less.
In other words, the difference is nothing more or less than *everything*. Even in the physical world, something "done from metal alloy" and something "done from" smoke are going to be so different as to be incomparable. Something that exists only as a transient pattern of electrical signals--not significantly different from thoughts in someone's head, in the end--has even less in common.
Posted Jun 20, 2014 20:51 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (15 responses)
The fact that it's also an array of electric charges is irrelevant. Just as it is irrelevant that a physical lock is an array of atoms.
And the way you implement that 'virtual lock' is also irrelevant (since it's not specified in the patent). Just as it's irrelevant whether you're using a chisel or laser cutter to make a physical sliding lock.
Posted Jun 22, 2014 23:25 UTC (Sun)
by fest3er (guest, #60379)
[Link] (14 responses)
Print out a program's source code. Lay it on the floor. Wait for it to do something or cause something to happen. You'll die first.
Oh, wait. It's source code. So compile it. Place the drive (rotating or flash) that contains the compiled program on the floor and wait for it to do something. You'll still die waiting.
Like words printed on a piece of paper, software is an intangible idea. You cannot touch it. Like a novel, you can only imagine it. Without something real and physical to follow its instructions, software can do nothing.
Patents apply to real, physical, tangible things that do something real and tangible. Copyrights apply to virtual, non-physical, intangible ideas that can only be imagined. Software lies in the realm of ideas. And like all ideas, software can be copyrighted. Not patented.
The software that computes the cure time of rubber based on temperature measurements cannot be patented because it is merely an idea. A device that measures the temperature of the curing rubber and turns off the heating element once curing is calculated to be complete can be patented because it does something (turns off the heat).
Posted Jun 23, 2014 0:26 UTC (Mon)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
If you read the Alice decision, you will see that it's more than just "turning of the heat", it's that the process did something that hadn't been possible before, measuring the temperature inside the mold on a continuing basis to calculate when the curing was completed.
There are other cases where the SC has rules that merely using a computer to set off an alarm when something crosses a threshold is not patent eligible.
Posted Jun 23, 2014 4:24 UTC (Mon)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (12 responses)
This keeps coming up where people who should really know better keep treating computers like magic wizard boxes rather than the real physical machines they are. The fact that our computers are transistor based and not gear based like a fire control computer or made of brass like the difference engine does not change this fact.
Posted Jun 23, 2014 15:04 UTC (Mon)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link] (11 responses)
Bits may be *represented by* electromagnetic states of real materials, but that isn't what they *are*. The meaning we ascribe to bits is independent of how they're represented, whether through electrical charge, magnetism, phases of matter, optics, or even mechanical cogs and gears. A bit is an abstract logical 0 or 1; the physical form is an irrelevant implementation detail.
Under your interpretation, words like "intangible" or "virtual" or "abstract" would have no meaning whatsoever, since all ideas are ultimately represented in some physical form, whether that be sound waves in air, graphite patterns on paper, or electrochemical signals in someone's brain. The distinction isn't between things that have a physical form and things that don't, but rather between things where the physical form is important and others where it is merely one of many equivalent representations.
> The fact that our computers are transistor based and not gear based like a fire control computer or made of brass like the difference engine does not change this fact.
Indeed. The software remains pure math and not patent-eligible regardless of the specific makeup of the general-purpose computer that evaluates it. Whether made of brass gears or transistors, it remains a machine specifically designed to evaluate arbitrary inputs according to software instructions--*any* inputs, and *any* software, all with the same machine. Changing the inputs or the software does not transform it into a different machine. It *replaces* other special-purpose computing devices; it doesn't *become* them.
Posted Jun 23, 2014 18:39 UTC (Mon)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (10 responses)
> Changing the inputs or the software does not transform it into a different machine. It *replaces* other special-purpose computing devices; it doesn't *become* them.
I don't think that is an unassailable point, that is an assumption and depends on semantics and belief, others with different assumptions could legitimately come to different logical conclusions. If you want to understand other people and other arguments you have to be able to separate out what is real beyond debate and what the assumptions are.
Posted Jun 23, 2014 20:56 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (8 responses)
For example, the byte 11010001 may be represented in voltage as +5,+5,0,+5,0,0,0,+5. Or it may be represented in magnetism by NNSNSSSN.
Thing is, we're separating the *idea* from the *implementation*. And no disrespect to the readership here, but in my interest in "how people learn", I came across the interesting facts that (1) people aren't capable of separating concept from implementation (ie they don't understand the abstract) until they are about 14. Even more interesting, (2) it may be OVER HALF of people *never* *make* that transition, ie the majority of people are incapable of abstract thought!
Unfortunately, I get the impression that a fair few people here haven't made the transition ...
And what do you do when (as I think is the *normal* *real* *life* *behaviour*) that byte above is represented as SNSSSNNS ? Done that way because it seems to be less error prone. But what's a 1 and what's a 0?
Cheers,
Posted Jun 24, 2014 1:44 UTC (Tue)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 24, 2014 18:31 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
But the patent lawyers believe that using a computer (a previously patented device) to carry out a list of instructions (an unpatentable "recipe", or program) creates a new, patentable machine.
Notwithstanding patent and case law to the contrary ...
Cheers,
Posted Jun 24, 2014 11:43 UTC (Tue)
by Asebe8zu (subscriber, #24600)
[Link] (5 responses)
It reminds me about the distinction between freedom of expression and expressions you don't approve of.
Do you have links to information on this transition to abstract thought?
Posted Jun 24, 2014 18:29 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (4 responses)
One of my strong memories (which influences the way I teach my grandson) is of my father trying to teach me about negative numbers. It was just completely over my head. And the way I used to read his "Understanding Science" magazines because they had lovely pretty pictures and I loved reading and the language they used, but a lot of what they were trying to teach I couldn't understand.
Then, at the right time at school, all these things were taught, and I remembered back to all this stuff, and I just knew what the teacher was teaching. A classic example is valency. I believe it usually took a week or two for the topic to really sink in (I know various people in my class had horrible trouble with it). It took me 30 seconds, to remember back to the articles in those magazines, and say to myself "Oh!! THAT'S what it was trying to say!!".
So when I'm explaining something to my grandson, I never worry if he understands me or not (of course I want him to! :-) But if he's interested and understands, he'll come back at me, and if it's over his head I trust he'll remember and come back to me when he's ready.
Cheers,
Posted Jun 24, 2014 20:44 UTC (Tue)
by Asebe8zu (subscriber, #24600)
[Link]
Posted Jun 24, 2014 21:03 UTC (Tue)
by Asebe8zu (subscriber, #24600)
[Link]
Cheers
Posted Jun 25, 2014 18:18 UTC (Wed)
by dashesy (guest, #74652)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 25, 2014 20:24 UTC (Wed)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
LOL. This is exactly how negative numbers are usually “made” (Remember? “God made natural numbers; all else is the work of man”). You claim that “integer” is pair of natural numbers, then you can easily explain how all operations work (each iteger could be represented by many equivalent pairs, but this is not a problem: the same problem exist with rationals and it does not hurt us, right?). In particular −{a, b} is the same as {b, a}. Easy and simple…
Posted Jun 24, 2014 3:10 UTC (Tue)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link]
On this much, at least, I think we can agree. While the data (including the software) is representation-agnostic and thus intangible, an operating computer is a tangible thing, including the states of all the signals inside it at any given time.
Fortunately, the court seems to agree with me that this makes exactly zero difference in regard to patent-eligibility. A claim for an abstract business method on a general-purpose computer is a transparent attempt to claim the abstract business method; the use of a computer to speed up evaluation of the business-method algorithm is incidental and obvious. If future courts show the slightest tendency toward consistency, they'll apply the same logic against attempts to patent other kinds of algorithms.
Posted Jun 20, 2014 19:07 UTC (Fri)
by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2014 20:05 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Posted Jun 22, 2014 20:53 UTC (Sun)
by Seegras (guest, #20463)
[Link]
As mentioned [citation needed]
> The "slide to unlock" *widget* is software form of a mathematical
Alright, you tell me, this is illegal to patent in the first place, because it's math:: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html
The physical device itself is also obvious, and covered by prior art. Namely there's an Egyptian hieroglyph that appears at the latest in 1290 B.C. depicting it.
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
Wol
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
Wol
don't get too excited
This drug is completely new. It's also for a disease that is a major cause of liver transplants.
Such regulations are already in place. Critical drugs can be fast-tracked by FDA and approved even if significant side-effects are present.
That is called 'a patent'.
Can you provide actual examples of pharma research? I do, since we work with drug discovery companies.
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
> That is called 'a patent'.
Wol
don't get too excited
It's close to 7-10 years. Typical time from the initial drug development to marketing is 10 years. Significantly extending the protection period won't generate much additional income, but it will destroy the generics market.
Totally and insanely incorrect. Most of R&D is done on _totally_ _new_ areas. Tweaking old drugs is simply not profitable for large-scale R&D, because old drugs already work.
Our company is distributed between continents, but our customers are almost all in the US.
Nope. Pharma companies trail only silicon companies in the amount of R&D - universally. Simply because pharma companies have to innovate or die: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2009/07/08/how_much_...
don't get too excited
> drugs after tens of billions of dollars spent on their development.
don't get too excited
Wol
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
It's also true with slide-to-unlock. You are free to develop 'blueprints' (source code) for it.
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
Its implementation ('embodiment' in patent lingo) is a physical object. USPTO agrees that it's enough to make it patentable.
Incorrect. Patent law allows development of patented objects only in a very narrow range of cases. You can't even do it for personal use, only for non-commercial research and/or education.
Nope. See above.
don't get too excited
From the point of view of a self-interested patent attorney, all patents are valid.
Except those self-interested patent attorneys who specialize in fighting bad patents and getting them overturned. Which, considering the huge mess of the patent landscape these days, and the number of patent trolls out there, pretty much has to be its own specialty by now.
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
No, it hasn't. "ON A COMPUTER!!!" loophole is still very much there.
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
In essence, one should treat the computer/software combination as a black box. We don't care about what's inside, just that it plays the designated role in the overall design.
Your computer does not contain a pocket universe behind the screen where virtual objects like sliding switches live.
don't get too excited
> Of course it does!
don't get too excited
No. With a computer I have an object - a visually distinct arrangement of pixels that responds to certain actions in a certain way. It turns out that this combination of objects and their behaviors is patentable.
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
Wol
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
Wol
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
Wol
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
See http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/piaget....
Interesting, I remember problem with negative numbers too (subtraction was fine). Our teacher started the numbers by associating them with apples, I could easily grasp rational and real numbers (which were thought later than negative numbers), but I could not imagine having -3 apples. I still change a + -b to a - b in my head.
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
I still change a + -b to a - b in my head.
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
Only “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away” that was true. Today in US it's aboutnew and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. Composition of matter is not a process.
don't get too excited
don't get too excited
> patented some 300 years ago.
> function mapping a sequence of numerical inputs from a touch input device
> to a set of RGB pixels on a display device plus a boolean "unlock"
> output, with the net effect of *simulating* a "slide to unlock" switch.