Hacker News Reader

Comment by euank | Hacker News Reader

This is one of the reasons software patents are dumb imo; they don't actually share sufficient details to implement the idea any more easily.

In other fields, such as mechanical engineering, patents are required to describe an invention in enough detail that a person "skilled in the art" could reproduce it.

In the field of software, the patent merely has to describe the invention (software) well enough that it can be identified, not written. To match other fields, where it's common to require essentially full bluprints, it would make sense to require working source code (if only a reference implementation) for any software patent.

As is, the patenter "gifts" the public with the knowledge of an idea which is rarely in itself useful; the source code could at least be potentially useful.

View on HN

From Fonar v. GE, 1996: “As a general rule, where software constitutes part of a best mode of carrying out an invention, description of such a best mode is satisfied by a disclosure of the functions of the software. This is because, normally, writing code for such software is within the skill of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been disclosed. * * * Thus, flow charts or source code listings are not a requirement for adequately disclosing the functions of software.” [0]

The patent lawyers have figured out that requiring that software patents make sense and reveal actual new engineering knowledge would make them useless for extracting cash for lawyers from actual working programmers.

[0] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1229938.html

I understand that logic and have heard it before.

However, it has a fundamental problem. Patents do not protect abstract ideas; they protect concrete inventions. I cannot patent "a means of traveling backwards in time" because that is an idea. As far as we know it's also impossible. You can't get a patent on "A surface that has zero friction" unless you also create that surface and explain how to do so. The idea that any physicist who is "skilled in the art" could figure out how to create such a surface from the laws of physics (which it surely must follow) is silly.

On the other hand, software patents are exactly like that. I can patent "A method whereby clicking a button solves P=NP" and simply claim that the solution is produced somehow. I have to give no example implementation or even very specific details. This is highly at odds with other industries.

I do understand the legality of it, but it's still significantly different than other fields and leads to inane results.

Amazing. That fact, alone, discredits software patents. For patents to have any social value, they must be protecting intellectual property that is difficult to reproduce. The assertion here is the reverse: in software, implementation, after description of the function, is so easy it does not merit description. If it is so, then software requires no patent protection in the first place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com