http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/you-cant-patent-simple-math-judge-tells-patent-troll-uniloc/

Quote :

"A patent troll that accused Rackspace of violating a patent merely by selling Linux-based servers has seen its case thrown out. A judge ruled the patent claim invalid because it describes a relatively simple math operation."

Quote :

"Math operations aren't automatically unpatentable, but US District Court Judge Leonard Davis ruled yesterday that this one isn't novel enough to deserve patent protection. Why not? Because the "invention" claimed was just a decision to round numbers before, instead of after, an arithmetic computation. Seriously."

How are these companies allowed to exist? They don't create/invent/do anything. They just find already existing software operations and patent them (somehow nobody throws up any flags), then make millions off of settlements.

3/28/2013 3:54:39 PM

3/28/2013 4:08:15 PM

2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8

or

2 + 2 = 5

3/28/2013 4:28:04 PM

Quote :

"How are these companies allowed to exist?"

because the law allows them to. Software patents should never have been allowed to begin with.

3/28/2013 5:31:09 PM

It often does make a difference

like 1.2+2.2+3.2=6.6, which rounds to 7
but 1+2+3=6, rounding before adding

and 0.6+1.6+2.6=4.8, which rounds to 5
and rounding before adding still gives 1+2+3=6

3/28/2013 5:32:35 PM

I don't understand why we are getting examples of rounding numbers and addition. Am I missing something?


Are you saying that because it makes a difference, that someone should be able to patent the rounding of numbers before vs after a calculation

[Edited on March 28, 2013 at 7:13 PM. Reason : cf]

3/28/2013 7:11:35 PM

No, I'm just saying that it does sometimes make a difference, unlike what Smath74 may have unintentionally implied; I too believe that this should not be patentable.

3/28/2013 7:23:14 PM

Alrighty

3/28/2013 9:19:09 PM

Quote :

"unlike what Smath74 may have unintentionally implied"

ummmm

3/28/2013 9:24:01 PM

Quote :

"Software patents should never have been allowed to begin with."

This. Software should fall solely under copyright law not patent law.

3/29/2013 1:53:12 AM

I think everyone would have loled if the case went through successfully... Apple would be trippin' balls.

3/29/2013 6:00:12 AM

At the end of the day, isn't all software a series of simple mathematical functions?

3/29/2013 11:27:18 AM

^I've always compared it to architecture. Its based in the hard science but there is a certain art to doing it well.

3/29/2013 11:50:23 AM

Agreed that copywright law would have made more sense.

You still have IP protection, but you actually have to have the content created before it's protected.

3/29/2013 12:46:33 PM

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/top-us-patent-judge-pens-anti-troll-op-ed-in-nyt/

6/5/2013 4:30:43 PM

Quote :

"No, I'm just saying that it does sometimes make a difference, unlike what Smath74 may have unintentionally implied"

what in god's name else COULD i have been implying with that post?

6/5/2013 4:56:18 PM

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/when-patents-attack-part-two




[Edited on June 11, 2013 at 7:51 AM. Reason : .]

6/11/2013 7:50:56 AM

^Wow. Things are much more messed up than I realized, and I thought they were pretty messed up already.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/transcript

Quote :

"A group called Innovatio has been going around suing coffee shops and grocery stores for violating its patent on providing Wi-Fi in a public space. They say they own that idea. And if your coffee shop is providing Wi-Fi, you owe them money. They say they've made a strategic and business judgment not go after people using Wi-Fi in their own homes, quote, "at this stage.""

Quote :

"Another company called Boadin Technologies, LLC, has sued a bunch of media organizations, saying that one of its patents is infringed every time a word or phrase on your computer autocompletes."

Quote :

"And a company in Vermont called MPHJ Technology has sent licensing letters to hundreds of businesses in Vermont, saying, any time an employee scans something to be emailed, that employee is infringing on MPHJ's patent. They say they own the idea of scanning a document and then emailing it. They're asking for around $1,000 per employee in damages. One of the companies they've approached is a nonprofit serving disabled people."

6/11/2013 10:02:11 AM

i can't imagine any judge would allow those to stand up in court...and you'd think people would be downright embarrassed to even presume to "own" such things

it's ridiculous

6/11/2013 11:03:43 AM

it's like a nigerian prince scam. even if 99.9% of businesses tell them to fuck off, they're still making money.

6/13/2013 7:38:35 AM