Timeline for Is it worth patenting an algorithm if I don't have the money to defend against infringements?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2017 at 7:46 | comment | added | Gewure | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| May 29, 2017 at 12:13 | comment | added | Gewure | So @Maca, no im not "simply wrong". Especially not in the EU. I don't know why you guys think you can patent a series of abstract steps?! This is anything but clear! See e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoelace_formula , which derives its name from tieing shoe laces. I'll go and patent it now and make a lot of money ;) | |
| May 29, 2017 at 12:12 | comment | added | Gewure | Ad Alice: "Relying on Mayo v. Prometheus, the court found that an abstract idea could not be patented just because it is implemented on a computer. In Alice, a software implementation of an escrow arrangement was not patent eligible because it is an implementation of an abstract idea." - back to the topic: An abstract Algorithm (Maths!) is not patentable, an implementation is patentable. This is why e.g. all graph-Algos (Kruskal, Djikstra...)are not patent-protected. [..] | |
| May 29, 2017 at 11:23 | comment | added | Maca | @Gewure And finally, at the risk of being long-winded, to say that anything is patentable in the US is to ignore the last decade of tightening standards, particularly post-Alice. | |
| May 29, 2017 at 11:21 | comment | added | Maca | @Gewure And the reason there are more patent lawsuits in the US in almost entirely to do with legal system, market size and expected returns. Treble damages plus jury awards in a market of 300 million people is much more lucrative than separate suits in the UK, France and Germany with judicially-set damages. That the US has historically had lower examination standards is relevant, but barely, since patentability is much more throughly contested during litigation. | |
| May 29, 2017 at 11:18 | comment | added | Maca | @Gewure My point is the EPO has nothing to do with the EU. It's entirely independent. Turkey and Switzerland being members of the EPO is a clear signal of that. This is not merely a pedantic point, it is quite important: each country in the EU has its own patent laws which may be significantly different from those of the EPO. The UK (which remains an EU member at present) is the most notable example: UK patentability is wildly different from EPO patentability. This variation would not exist if the EU set patent law. | |
| May 29, 2017 at 10:43 | comment | added | Gewure | @Maca: there is no 'purely formal' law, yes. At is with most directives in the EU. In practice its still applicable: m.epo.org/index.html Depending on what algorithm you want to patent, your changes of getting it are significantly lower than in the US (where you can indeed patent anything). This is also the reason why there are many more patentlawsuits filed in the US than in the EU: you simply can't patent everything in the EU thats easily possible in the US. | |
| May 29, 2017 at 10:06 | comment | added | Maca | This answer is simply wrong anyway: I don't see why it is upvoted. First, on a purely formal level, there's no EU patent (yet). Second, algorithms are perfectly patentable if they have a technical effect. Third, "abstract" is a US-centric term, which still does not exclude algorithms necessarily. | |
| May 25, 2017 at 13:33 | comment | added | DonkeyBoy | @Gewure Everyone is entitled to their subjective point of view, but you should consider why you have that point of view. Do you believe something just because the media or some other authority figure had that point of view. Or have you actually thought about this in detail and considered the implications? Are you really repulsed by the idea of inventors and designers from being able to protect their ideas and make a living doing what they love? And why? If I work hard for 5-10 years on a great idea to benefit society, do you disagree with my right to protect my hard work? | |
| May 25, 2017 at 9:47 | comment | added | user18033 | @Gewure afaik the patent you are talking about was actually a design patent, which is specifically made to patent designs (not only in the US). | |
| May 25, 2017 at 8:19 | comment | added | Gewure | @DonkeyBoy Yes, that is (my subjectiv view!) the terrible and absurd US-patent law, where you even can patent (like apple did) something as silly as an electronic information device with rounded edges. If you just define the design detailed enough. In the EU such patents are worthless/not even patentable. | |
| May 25, 2017 at 6:50 | comment | added | DonkeyBoy | @Volker Siegel Computer code that solves a scientific problem in a novel way is able to be patented and can be protected. I know this because I have seen many other patents in the same field as mine. | |
| May 25, 2017 at 5:36 | comment | added | Volker Siegel | @DonkeyBoy The usual "workaround" to convert an algorithm into something concrete enough to be patented is to combine it with some piece of hardware it interacts with. | |
| May 25, 2017 at 5:34 | comment | added | Volker Siegel | @DonkeyBoy Computer code is not much different than just writing it down in clear prose. It is only creating a concrete representation of the algorithm, and anybody knowing the algorithm could do that. So that's nothing you can protect. | |
| May 25, 2017 at 4:44 | comment | added | DonkeyBoy | If you look at my original question, you will see that I am specifically talking about computer code. That is not abstract. | |
| May 25, 2017 at 3:21 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| May 25, 2017 at 14:28 | |||||
| May 24, 2017 at 18:45 | review | First posts | |||
| May 24, 2017 at 19:18 | |||||
| May 24, 2017 at 18:44 | history | answered | Gewure | CC BY-SA 3.0 |