Hacker News Reader

Comment by VWWHFSfQ | Hacker News Reader

This isn't a software patent.

Yes it is:

Voice Tech's patents, according to their abstract, involve "receiving audio data from [a] mobile device at the computer. The audio data is decoded into a command. A software program that the command was provided for is determined. At least one process is executed at the computer in response to the command. Output data is generated at the computer in response to executing at least one process at the computer. The output data is transmitted to the mobile device."

https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/12/mycroft_patent_troll/

This is different. This isn't a patent of an algorithm or similar implementation in software. This is a means of controlling a device by decoded voice commands via another device. It's not a software patent in the way FOSS people mean when they say to ban software patents.

Describing a shovel as an "emplacement tool" does not make it not a shovel. Similarly, dressing up a software patent to disguise its functionality as a software patent does not make it cease to be a software patent.

If software that runs on a prior art general purpose computer can infringe a patent, it's a software patent.

If the difference between a device allegedly infringing and not infringing is whether it's running a certain piece of software, then obviously the software is what's patented.

The abstract isn’t the part that matters.

Take patent US9794348[1] which covers some specific heuristics that can be used to decide which voice command to execute. The only remotely interesting part of the claims (the "audio command interface") is definitely software, the detailed description even says that it could expose an API and other applications could use it to expose voice commands.

[1] see https://patents.google.com/patent/US9794348

I wasn’t taking a position about whether this qualifies as a software patent. Just pointing out that the abstract is near-worthless in making any evaluation of a patent.

Formally it's intended as a hardware patent due to involvement of computer. But since it doesn't invent hardware, it's merely invalid patent. AFAIK USPTO bears no responsibility for granting invalid patents.

"it's intended as a hardware patent due to involvement of computer"

All software patents are hardware patents since the program runs on the computer.

That's the loophole that the EPO has been using to allow software patents to be granted anyway, despite their exclusion in the law.

After the failed attempt to codify their practice in law in 2005, the large companies and the patent industry decided to install their own court, the Unified Patent Court, which might go live next 1st March.

They broke the rule of law as they needed the signature of the UK, with the blessing of the European Commission Thierry Breton, the guy who was ex-CEO of Technicolor, who made a fortune with MP3 patents.

How will they enforce decisions of their court?

It's only an invalid patent if you manage to get review before SCOTUS. Otherwise your road ends at the federal circuit which has yet to meet a patent it doesn't like.

Pretty sure you can go up from federal court? It happened.

How isn't this an obvious invention?

Can you explain why it's not what EFF means? To me, the part of software patents that doesn't make sense is that you can patent any possible combination of ideas — in this case the combination of using voice and remotely controlling a computer — and it's considered a valid patent.

In my opinion, this is like patenting putting a blue Lego brick on a red brick because nobody bothered to write down or patent that particular combination before. There's no core novelty here, and obviously Mycroft was not stealing profits from Voice Tech Corp.

But it took a million dollars to defend that it wasn't one patent, from one person.

Seems like a very very real reason to be horrified by software patents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com