Hacker News Reader

Comment by fleitz | Hacker News Reader

It's not true, ideas are never patentable, they have to pass the machine-transformation test. When the trajectory is applied to a machine it becomes patentable.

It's the application that is patented not the idea. The trajectory alone is not patentable as it fails to meet the machine-transformation test.

View on HN

I don't follow you. Of what use is it to say that "ideas are never patentable," and then hedge the statement by pointing out that trivial application of the idea to any given concrete object renders it, in effect, patentable?

Why couldn't the grandparent poster file for a patent on a particular sequence of turns and braking/acceleration maneuvers needed to drive from one place to another in the least amount of time? Under your reasoning, all he has to do is add "with an automobile" to the abstract series of instructions, in order to be granted ownership of those instructions with respect to their execution with an automobile.

How in the world can anyone think this is OK?

So GPS makers can not only have patents on how a route is created, but on the actual routes?

If the route is non-obvious and doesn't have prior art probably.

If you invented a warp drive that could get you from New York to London in 3 minutes you could probably file a patent for folding space in a manner that gets you from New York to London in three minutes with out smushing the earth into bits.

Ideas are not patentable, but a machine that implements the idea is what's patentable. Someone demonstrated that software implementations are equivalent to a custom-built machine. And poof mathematical algorithms (like RSA for example) and business methods (still really just ideas) became patentable.

So it's not that you can apply an idea to a machine, it's that you can implement the idea as a machine using a general purpose computer and some software. Now, you can certainly fight against this ... but can you afford to do so?

I don't think it's right. I think the systems needs overhaulin'

I'm not trying to advocate I'm trying to convey my understanding of patent law.

Likely the reason that boeing was granted a patent is because going to the moon to place an object in geosynchronous orbit is non-obvious, according to the patent office.

Reasons I could see the series of turns being rejected for use in an automobile is probably because of obviousness and prior art. If you invented something that allowed you to drive to china faster via a trasnit of the moon then you probably could get a patent for it.

I didn't say any of the things you said, I said that an idea alone can't be patented because of machine-transformation test, if you'd like to argue about whether it makes sense take it up with the SCOTUS. Also, patents don't grant ownership they grant monopoly on use of the patented claims for a period of 17 years.

People think this is OK because the inventor discloses his invention to the public for anyone to use after the monopoly has ended. Note that no one gets to use SpaceX's inventions in rocketry because they don't file patents, conversely if you come up with the invention yourself you're free to use it because they don't have a monopoly on the invention.

But if you read the patent it's just about a method, not some application - how could that possibly pass the test you mentioned?

It passed the "is it worth arguing it in court" patentability test. Would there be an ROI on the legal fees, time, etc to fight the patent? No? Then the patent holds up.

Could the Yankees patent a particular trajectory to the plate and keep all the other teams from pitching that way?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com