A software patent without source code (or at least psuedo code) is effectively patenting "all possible implementions of this idea". That should be considered too broad.
You can disagree that software concepts can be patented (I tend towards this view), but you can't have a patent that only protects a particular implementation. That would be copyright.
The idea is worth something but so is the implementation because ideas are generic and the more specific you make them, the more you actually define an implementation, in the physical world at least.
If your rocket does work, then yes being able to lock everyone else out of it for decades is the entire point.
But once those decades are over, anyone else can copy your idea, which has been documented for all of eternity. There's an almost endless list of inventions before patents that were never made public, and nobody knows how they worked.
Unfortunately, that's the idea for how patents are supposed to work. In the real world what we have is patent trolls.
Exactly, a patent can't be just for "an idea" which is intrinsically generic but rather for the actual implementation with details. Patenting ideas would probably be the very definition of an overly broad patent.
No, because the disclosure has to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of the invention. This is called the “enablement” requirement.
Is it, though? Like the lightbulb patent was for the specific way of making a lightbulb, not on "something that makes light from electricity".
In any case, a patent will be drafted to try to cover as many possible implementations of the thing or method.
>"something that makes light from electricity"
So yeah probably too abstract to be patentable. However something like "something that makes light from electricity by passing it through a filament" might be enough to make it not abstract.
No, you can't patent "drug that alleviates headaches", you can only patent a specific formulation, and a competitor is still free to create any other formulation that achieves the same result.
Edit: That is to say, I think you agree in principle, and you're finding points of disagreement in the wording that were not intended.
This kind of super-broad patent enforcement happened with 3D printing, and is still happening with e-ink technology. In both cases, the patents didn't have centuries of prior art covering what would otherwise have been entire industries, and could protect their monopolies for 20 years.
"mincing words" is a good description of law in general. That's no criticism at all.
It's been attempted. They invent and patent X as a "method to do Y", and then try to sue others who do Y via some means other than X.
My point was that the original description of patents was not precise enough and implied that you could patent Y rather than X.
Still, patent claims are never as broad as "drug to alleviate headaches" or anything similar.
No, that's not true. A patent is on an invention, not an idea.
You patent an invention, not an idea. Section 112 says you have to identify the Best Mode of making your invention. Patents are also careful to say "in one embodiment, the invention..."
> you can't have a patent that only protects a particular implementation. That would be copyright.
Yes, you can. Claims are drafted to not be limiting, but it can happen.
I was getting at you don't patent the code itself (which has copyright protection).
A patent becomes worthless when it is invalidated after you try to enforce it. The enforcement proceedings are the real legal test of a patent. The mere granting of a patent doesn't prove validty. Contrary to what lay people usually expect.
The reasons for having this sort of system are mostly diplomatic, economic, and administrative, so far as a I understand.
A) The patent system is an international patchwork B) For obvious reasons testing all inventions comprehensively is extremely time consuming. It would increase the cost to register patents. C) It's far more efficient to let the market sort it out by invalidating patents on sky castles when someone tries to enforce them.
It was probably this more than anyone else that made me realize that Patent Examiners are really, really good at their jobs and not just rubber stamps, as the software community seems to think.
that's true, but the 112 section of the statute says you have to prove that you "have" the invention, with a Written Description and an Enabling specification. Examiners do make 112 rejections all the time. This merely implements the intentions of 112.