Hacker News Reader

Comment by pavel_lishin | Hacker News Reader

> Currently, the superformula is patented by Gielis, [2] but the patent was withdrawn in 2006 because of the patent fees not being paid.[3]

I did not know you could patent a mathematical formula.

View on HN

You can't. On one, Gielis even put the equation in claim 1 but somehow they got the village idiot for an examiner.

http://www.google.com/patents/US7620527

Patent 5533051 [0] is a classic. Some quotes:

  A second aspect of the present invention which further enhances
  its ability to achieve high compression percentages, is its
  ability to be applied to data recursively. Specifically, the
  methods of the present invention are able to make multiple
  passes over a file, each time further compressing the
  file. Thus, a series of recursions are repeated until the
  desired compression level is achieved.

  ...

  Thus, one skilled in the art can see that by keeping the
  appropriate counters, the direct bit encode method of the
  present invention is effective for reducing an input string by
  one bit regardless of the bit pattern of the input string.

What would one say about the examiner now?

[0] https://www.google.com/patents/US5533051

Not in EU. Such a patent is invalid, but if they managed to get it approved by the EU patent bureau (which is known for accepting such baseless claims) then they have a patent that needs a court action to be invalidated. In the meantime, it is assumed to be valid.

But it seems to be an EU patent based on this link (on the Wikipedia page) https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC...

Yes, this patent is supposed valid but any court would invalidate it. The EU patent bureau has produced a lot of these "method and apparatus". Turns out that one can't patent algorithms, but one can patent the machine composed of a computer running such an algorithm. It is a known loophole and I don't think any of these patents hold up in court.

Actually, I am not even sure that they can enforce anything against a software company with this patent. Someone who distributes a software does not produce an "apparatus" so I am not sure if they can even launch a procedure based on that patent.

no doubt it was something like "a system and method for generating natural shapes"

"Method and apparatus for synthesizing patterns"

https://www.google.com/patents/EP1177529B1?cl=en

You can't, only its application. Genicap's patent does cover application in software though.

Even patenting a formula's application is becoming more restricted. In Australia and the US, the two relevant tests seem to be whether the formula does something a human can't, and whether the formula is used to 'improve' the operations of a computer or machine (e.g. if it made your hard drive faster or controlled a robotic arm).

I had to look into this regarding an algorithm we're building and whether it's patentable. If your formula is a mere scheme or method implemented in a computer, it's likely to be rejected. The following links add detail:

http://www.fisheradamskelly.com.au/2015/12/full-federal-cour...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Intern...

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/05/13/federal-circuit-says-so...

Especially one that is obvious. I remember drawing similar things using a TI-84 in high school math, probably when we learned about polar coordinates.

Well in this case the developer of NMS specifically said he was struggling with planet generation until he discovered that exact formula, so you can understand why there is _some_ (not a lot mind) reasoning for the company who owns this patent (who are making a game involving it iirc) are making this claim. Judging by their statement though it seems they want more of a 'partnership' type thing (knowledge sharing, ride on NMS coattails for a bit etc)

And let's not forget there's an implementation on Wikipedia.

In most jurisdictions you can't really patent the use of an abstract mathematical formula on a computer with no gain, but that's something the law has only caught up to in the last decade. The patent is most likely invalid in the EU and US but was approved way back when those standards for invalidity didn't exist in their current forms. Of course, a court wouldn't need to be bound by the original decision of the examiner and would determine validity based on current case law and practice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com