EL – I haven’t done the patent search, but I’m pretty sure patents aren’t stopping research into using mathematics instead of the Hilbert program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_program).

The equation itself has never qualified as patent material. It must always be “by the hand of man,” requiring some action at some point. An equation on a piece of paper is free to use. Yes some convert an equation to software, that alone is not enough for patent protection. Putting the equation in a series “input, equation, output,” would still have to meet the rules for patentability. Someone may have a good example, but I think “Input, equation, output” would be the minimum for patentability and most issued patents have much more than that.

The patent to a linear system of equations had other limitations, thus was more than just equations. You have to do each and every step in the claim to infringe the patent.

If it’s that easy to get a bad patent, shouldn’t we all go into the Troll business, get a patent to “IF/THEN,” “LOOPS,” and/or “LOOPS with IF/THEN” statements and take the software world by storm. There’s such a low bar, anyone can get in. Let’s become GABAZILLIONAIRES(tm).

Trademarks although they are a form of IP protection, were not at issue previously. If you rail against all IP you clearly think that my definition of copying is OK, that everything should be free and that would be great if we could all pursue our dreams without having to earn a check. IF I could just write on a blog and play all day, no money, no worries, …

People have to earn money, frivilous lawsuits are not the answer and most patent attorneys/agents draft reasonable patents and get reasonable claims in their patents. There are bad patents, yes; there are bad software programs, yes; there are all kinds of bad things, do we ban everything? If I get a trivial email that wastes my time should I ban all email? I spend more time reading email than anything else, that didn’t happen 20 yrs ago. Unfortunately, there is more innovation in software than anywhere else. This means the next innovations are going to come in software and hardware. You can argue that software doesn’t deserve patents, but you disrespect the work of software engineers implying what they do is simple and not very important. The number of software patents argues against that. Owners would not file for patents if software didn’t earn money, since there are a lot of patents, it must earn a lot of money.

Perhaps you can review and contribute to wikipatent (if it’s still around). Index it so that any examiner can find relevant art against each and every element of a software claim. It’s important to get all of the elements and make sure it’s greater than 1 year before the patent filing date. I’d be glad to help you learn to bust patents [of course don't let that other newsletter guy hear that, he'll say I copied his newsletter].

OK, I’ll see your two glasses of Kool-Aid and raise you a six pack of coke in 710ml bottles.

And yes, the pictures are safe for work. Not that I would expect you to be working on a Sunday, but you never know

That link to the letter was worth two FREE glasses of Kool-Aid.

Thank you for making my day!

I agree with you, but I disagree in general where the balance should be drawn. In the example of software patents, I have a real concern on how patents of a certain type can effect mathematics and science. My concern is that software patents can get in the way of mathematical and scientific discoveries, and there needs to be a limitation placed upon what is qualified for patent subject material in software so that these discoveries are not harmed. Software gives matheamtics the real chance at becoming an empirical science. I think this may very well become the next big program in mathematics to replace the Hilbert program if the patent system can be fixed.

If the software patents were forced to be tied into applications, most of the problems would go away. For example, a software system for a rubber machine would not be a problem so long as it is tied to the application. When the calculation itself qualifies as patent material, we run into the problems because it cascades into everything. In a basic nutshell, it leaves the world of invention and enters into the world of mathematics and platonic ideas.

In general, the largest problem of sorting this out is the manor in which people view inventions. To me, the linear systems of equations patent is not an invention, but to some others, it is a invention needing protection.

I still don’t like them, and refuse to buy their products. If they want to be stupid, and piss off customers, that’s their problem.

Did you know that Discovery Channel surrendered the TV show name ‘Monster Garage’ to Monster Cable rather than fight – why should they have had to do this? Even the Wall Street Journal wasn’t impressed. And they haven’t stopped, they have attacked Monster Transmission.

Oh, and they also went after Blue Jeans Cable however they ran into a little problem – Kurt Denke of Blue Jeans Cable is a lawyer, and sent a six page response that is rather funny (PDF Warning!)

Wayne

The system worked, monster cable lost and paid out for their frivilous suit. That is how the system works.

We cannot get rid of everything based on the actions of a few. i.e. if we got rid of all blogs because one Mad Hatter can’t put together a logical argument.

The legal system in all industries, not just patents, is set up to try a case in court before a judge or jury. If you’d prefer a king decide your case, that may be more straightforward and require less lawyers. As our system stands, you have a complaint, you file a suit, you argue your case, and in most cases each pays for their own lawyer. Only in frivilous cases does the loser pay for the winners attorneys.

I agree, if Monster is that stupid and off the hook with their trademark and patent cases, they may need to get new counsel or new management. I am not in recording industry but will investigate and avoid monster cable if that is how they abuse the legal system.