Which Software Patents Are Worthwhile? 14
Dan Jagnow asks: "The USPTO issuing brain-dead patents is a recurring theme on Slashdot, as is the question of whether software patents ought to be issued at all. To turn the question around, what are some software innovations (historical or potential) that Slashdot readers feel merit patents?" I feel it quite reasonable to ask this question. If we must have software patents, and currently the USPTO feels this is so, then I would like to know which software patents you all feel are worthy of the name.
There are a number I believe to be good... (Score:1)
The Diffie-Hellman patent is a little more problematic. While the Diffie-Hellman algorithm *itself* seems to be legitimate, I really don't agree with the idea of the D-H patent covering the entire concept of public-key cryptography (this caused problems with licensing the RSA patent alone, eventually leading to the creation of PKP, in which both patent-holders attempted to mutually rape each other...).
I guess I think that methods for doing something should be patentable (i.e., RSA and Diffie-Hellman). But the actual results of that process shouldn't be patentable. That is, a patent on a cryptographic algorithm doesn't mean you have a monopoly on using keys in cryptosystems.
None. Really. (Score:3)
Really, this is quite the flamebait question to start with...
The problems with software patents relate to USPTO's inablilty to determine (a) what is new, and (b) what is really innovative. The fact that the USPTO cannot verify either of these qualifications invalidates the entire system. In today's vast vast vast society, there are literally millions of people working out similar problems. The Patent system is geared solely to those who have $bucks$ and to those who can work the system. If a bright poor student in a far-off corner of the country comes out with something brilliant, and at the same time(or even after), some other rich company/individual figures out the same thing, the rich guy wins. Why? because the rich guy files the patent, and therefore, in order that the poor student to actually profit from his work, has to win the court case. Law #1 of the USA: No Money, No Way.(*see OJ Simpson.)
Let innovation stand, get rid of the USPTO.
G
Diffie-Hellman key exchange (Score:3)
(If you think it's obvious, why did it take so long for someone to publish?)
Another nice property of this patent: it has expired.
Re:The lack of postings here means? (Score:1)
It only gets seen by those that look at this section of Slashdot or who look in 'older stuff'.
Re:Algorithms (Score:1)
No MORE software Patents, or any patents! (Score:3)
It's all good (Score:3)
Everybody seems to be attempting to find a single flaw in this idea and implementation of a patent system but there are many flaws. Patents have existing for over a century and the process has really not been updated since creation. We have a hundred year old process being used to regulate an environment that changes daily. We also have corporations that abuse the flaws in this outdated system and lawyers that encourage them.
The idea of a patent is really something that will protect an idea, which in itself is a vague summary of a process that has not been implemented. For a patent to be granted, you should be required to provide an implementation to demonstrate the actual end result. Then the end results should be included in the evaluation of its worthiness of a patent as well as the enforcement of the patent. You can't evaluate a process if you can't see how that process will and can be used.
For demonstration purposes, read the following patent claim [delphion.com]. Take a step back and pretend you are not a computer guru. Would you be able to evaluate this as obvious. If I put myself in "impartial mode", I wouldn't know what the hell they were talking about. If I come back to reality, what they are talking about could be something like a complex encryption mechanism that will only allow certain machines to access certain parts of a file. Or, it could be something as simple as an XML file with tag attributes indicating whether or not end users should be provided with the enclosed information. If there were an actual demonstration of their intentions and implementation of this, then it's validity could easily be judged.
No software patents are worthwhile (Score:1)
Just because one person encountered the problem first should not entitle them to prevent others from solving the same problem in a similar fashion.
Re:Diffie-Hellman key exchange (Score:2)
Way too subjective
Re: (Score:1)
Cryptography patents (Score:1)
I really couldn't come up with anything else, but in general, you can spot a valid patent by excluding all others that don't meet these requirements:
-it must be non-obvious;
-it must be valid by itself and not only for being something done on a computer or the Web;
-there is no prior art.
Requirements #1 and #3 require some expertise from the patent issuers, and the USPTO is clearly lacking such expertise (although for some patents even common sense would do, but they seem to lack it as well.) Requirement #2 is a mere consequence of the other two.
We need some sort of peer review of patents. Before being issued, it must go public for people to comment on it, clue the examiners on whether there is prior art, or even if a previous patent exists, but it didn't contain the word "Web." And a paradigm shift would be nice as well: instead of granting all patents except a few, grant only a patent once the author proves it deserves it, kinda like when you defend a Ph.D. thesis. If I wasn't clear, think of it as whether you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent, or innocent until you are proven guilty.
It just occured to me... (Score:2)
How about we do patents sorta like Jurry duty. The Patent Office goes through the reputable jurried journals in a variety of different areas and makes a list. Then they pick randomly from the list a team of PhD's in the different areas. Each PhD would need to review X patents and give opinions. Put Y PhD per patent to ensure that there is enough difference in opinion.
The problem, of course, is that every quack-infested medical journal and every whacko PhD out there would insist that their publications would be included in the search. Which would then mean that they would need legal standards -- perhaps codifying that certain orginizations like the AMA, ACM, IEEE, etc. would need to approve of the journal, and that the PhD would have to be from a university with accreditation.
Algorithms (Score:1)
Our current Patents (Score:2)
Email
Emoticons
Online Chat
Software Plugins, (We are fairly sure winamp plugins were first, and we own winamp!)
The web browser
The html file format.
Check back in May when AOLTimeWarnerFordTri-StarUniversal will be patenting food. (Because no one else ever did!!)