Comments on: Lawyers Have Skewed Intuitions about Software Patents http://timothyblee.com/2009/11/11/lawyers-have-skewed-intuitions-about-software-patents/ A Blog by Timothy B. Lee Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:37:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Brian Moore http://timothyblee.com/2009/11/11/lawyers-have-skewed-intuitions-about-software-patents/comment-page-1/#comment-9475 Brian Moore Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:02:11 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=1646#comment-9475 Eh, phrased that badly, meant to say "does not make it a patentable creation." Also, my opinion of the court's technological savvy is probably only valid within the scope of my very low expectations. Eh, phrased that badly, meant to say “does not make it a patentable creation.” Also, my opinion of the court’s technological savvy is probably only valid within the scope of my very low expectations.

]]> By: Brian Moore http://timothyblee.com/2009/11/11/lawyers-have-skewed-intuitions-about-software-patents/comment-page-1/#comment-9474 Brian Moore Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:59:38 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=1646#comment-9474 Good news: apparently some on the supreme court are pretty informed about what's actually going on here -- especially from Stevens, about whom I will admit to have a certain stereotype of "old dude who knows nothing about technology." Bad news: that apparently it got through a large number of lower courts who couldn't figure that "installing new software on a machine" makes it a patentable creation, or that all computer programs aren't math. Good news: apparently some on the supreme court are pretty informed about what’s actually going on here — especially from Stevens, about whom I will admit to have a certain stereotype of “old dude who knows nothing about technology.”

Bad news: that apparently it got through a large number of lower courts who couldn’t figure that “installing new software on a machine” makes it a patentable creation, or that all computer programs aren’t math.

]]> By: Sean L. http://timothyblee.com/2009/11/11/lawyers-have-skewed-intuitions-about-software-patents/comment-page-1/#comment-9390 Sean L. Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:54:04 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=1646#comment-9390 As a programmer, I would say both Justice Roberts' hypothetical oil calculation and your last argument about the alarm clocks are closest to the mark. I would avoid referring to programs as algorithms or that they have been 'engineered' to perform a task. Programs may -contain- algorithms, but at their heart they are simply a set of instructions, not substantially different from the example given by Justice Roberts. The calculator is a general-use machine just as a computer is a general use machine. I can give instructions to a human to crunch numbers on a calculator, and I can write instruction code for a PC to do the same thing automatically. I think the easiest way to express this is, you can patent the calculator or a CPU because they both require specialized manufacturing processes that are not mere instructions to perform a task. All software however, no matter how complex, are ultimately just step-by-step instructions. Anyone who argues, "but it's how those instructions are put together that is patentable" is wrong because, as in Justice Roberts' example, does dividing by two in a different point of the process really make it patentable? As a programmer, I would say both Justice Roberts’ hypothetical oil calculation and your last argument about the alarm clocks are closest to the mark. I would avoid referring to programs as algorithms or that they have been ‘engineered’ to perform a task. Programs may -contain- algorithms, but at their heart they are simply a set of instructions, not substantially different from the example given by Justice Roberts. The calculator is a general-use machine just as a computer is a general use machine. I can give instructions to a human to crunch numbers on a calculator, and I can write instruction code for a PC to do the same thing automatically. I think the easiest way to express this is, you can patent the calculator or a CPU because they both require specialized manufacturing processes that are not mere instructions to perform a task. All software however, no matter how complex, are ultimately just step-by-step instructions. Anyone who argues, “but it’s how those instructions are put together that is patentable” is wrong because, as in Justice Roberts’ example, does dividing by two in a different point of the process really make it patentable?

]]>