Comments on: Bummed Out About Bilski

By: rtoennis

rtoennis — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 05:14:53 +0000

The reality is it's not particularly easy to find out if there is prior art. It's much easier now than in the past with the internet and search engines though.

By: Bill Mosby

Bill Mosby — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 00:58:08 +0000

This is similar to a feature of some 3D graphic design systems, Sketchup for one. But I suppose the application is a little different, applying to OS windows rather than objects in a design.

By: Bill Mosby

Bill Mosby — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 00:54:36 +0000

I wonder how many software patents even have any working code behind them in the first place.

By: angrydude

angrydude — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:34:26 +0000

I have good reasons to hide my real name

I have PhD in hard sciences, 2 MS degrees (one in Comp Science), dozen publications, and a patent, which I own and will (hopefully) be able to use one day to extract some money from those corporate thugs

Patent system IS broken, but for a different reason than you think

Have a nice weekend

By: Brad Feld

Brad Feld — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:16:04 +0000

Since you are commenting without leaving your real name, it's hard to engage in a rational conversation. I assure you I understand the difference between copyright and patents. My doctoral advisor at MIT was Eric von Hippel and I've spent lots of time thinking about, studying, and writing about the various issues.

If you feel strongly about this and want to actually have a discussion, I encourage you to use a real name and email instead of angrydude and patenttroll@hotmail.com

By: angrydude

angrydude — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:33:14 +0000

I hold a patent in my name which you can call "software patent" (or silicon "hardware patent" if you choose to implement it as ASIC)
I can assure you that it does teach a new and very useful invention and it does include pseudo-code from which any code monkey can write code in any computer language

I encourage you to read some "software patents" like RSA or Karmarkar or LZW to get a feeling of what good "software patent" should be

You have no clue about the distinction between patents and copyrights

I suggest educating yourself a bit before making a fool out of yourself on the internet

By: Brad Feld

Brad Feld — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:00:06 +0000

You apparently have never read a software patent. There is zero actual useful disclosure. If the software patents included source code, that would be a different story and then you only violated the patent if you copied the actual source code.

I encourage you to read the academic literature on trade secrets in information-based businesses rather than focusing on the middle ages.

By: Brad Feld

Brad Feld — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:59:07 +0000

Even more importantly, how about forcing disclosure of 100% of the source code as part of the process. That would change the dynamics als.

By: angrydude

angrydude — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:56:32 +0000

perhaps you should know that all Mshit patents are alike: they start with general description of computer and proceed with meaningless description of their "invention"
95% of all Mshit patents have serious validity problems (in view of KSR)

MShit patents are shit and they know it (at least the PhD dudes from Mshit research I spoke to at IEEE conference were well aware of this)

By: angrydude

angrydude — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:49:47 +0000

Trade secrets you say ?

May I remind you that the primary purpose of the patent system is "to promote the progress" by openly disseminating new knowledge

Otherwise we are back to Middle Ages with some of the most skilled tradesmen taking their know-how to grave…

Is this what you want ?