Nobody's claiming it's impossible to "search the PTO for possible conflicts", but rather that performing a thorough search is not as easy as you make it seem. If patent examiners themselves have to spend a lot of time researching prior art, what makes you think you can perform a similarly thorough search with minimal effort ("trivial", as you call it)? The fact is that software patents make life more difficult for small companies, self-help or otherwise.

You've chosen to dismiss one of the quotes I've posted based on the source (NoSoftwarePatents.com) and a literal interpretation of the word "impossible". Nevertheless, there's a huge difference between being biased and being wrong. Curiously, you have chosen to ignore the quote by a patent examiner concerning the difficulties of narrowing down the results of a patent search.

Clearly you have strong opinions and more than a passing interest in the subject of software patents. Is it possible, perhaps, that you too might be biased? I wonder, do you hold or intend to apply for any patents yourself?

PS - I don't know how helpful it is to be handed a short list of patents and patent applications. If software developers did not have to worry about more than a handful of patents, life would be a lot simpler.

Precisely how do two programmers, presumably both near the leading edge of their field, convince two lawyers, a judge, and a randomly selected jury, that an invention regarding reordering the data in a red-black tree is "obvious" ? Sheeesh.

As a "outsider" to the US, may I say that from over here, it looks like the winner of any court case of this nature is whoever paid their lawyer the most. I don't personally consider this fair.

Incidently, I would argue that sending electrical impulses through the human body is so obvious it's been in science fiction for decades. I also know there is a Japanese phone that sends the sound waves through the body instead of having a speaker (you put your finger in your ear). Sending electricity instead has to be an obvious extension of the idea and so invalid as a patent. I still bet Microsoft would win the court case.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster Wow this patent stuff is very scary. block.

Actually, I was hoping to take out some of the "scary" out of software patents.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster John Schultz are you a layer, I cannot even file my own taxes, I just go to H&R block.

If this were the lounge, then yes, but since it's not, no.

Quote:

Original post by chronos If patent examiners themselves have to spend a lot of time researching prior art, what makes you think you can perform a similarly thorough search with minimal effort ("trivial", as you call it)? The fact is that software patents make life more difficult for small companies, self-help or otherwise.

1st sentence: in context, the following was stated:

Quote:

Compared to math and writing software, patent claims are trivial.

However, now that you mention it, a patent search is trivial, it just takes time, effort, common sense and a little detective work.

2nd sentence: I work in a small company: patents have not made life more difficult (nor for any of the other small companies I have worked with. The expert witness case was two larger companies squaring off); your statement is false and misleading, with no basis whatsoever in fact. Anyone and everyone will be helped by arming themselves with knowledge about how patents work and are used in the business world. I argue that reading alarmist websites with dubious backers and not reading about how patents actually work is dangerous for a software developer.

[begin weak attempt at humor to diffuse discussion]
A commercial software developer does not have the option to just throw up their hands and say, "oh well, we're hosed! Microsoft, IBM, HP, and EA are going to destroy us with their patents and armies of Armani-clad lawyers amped out on Starbucks driving big black AMG Mercedes'z, smashing baby seals as they drive to their beachfront mansions on the way home from ripping off poor, smaller software companies like us".
[/end weak attempt at humor to diffuse discussion]

Back to business- one can either:

a). Learn about patents and the patent process and deal with it the best they can. This includes doing a reasonable amount of research to avoid infringement, using elements that are well known and in the public domain, and following the patent application process to monitor bogus patent applications in order to help them be rejected before they become issued patents.
b). Ignore the issue and hope for the best (certainly low stress, but probably not very wise).
c). Spend time arguing+debating the value of the patent system (which we cannot change (in a timely manner)), spreading disinformation about how it is bad for smaller companies, and not actually creating anything worth patenting to begin with. This option carries high stress and no benefit to anyone.

(Actually, with reasonable effort, a smaller company can be made stronger by using the patent system. Additionally, smaller companies pay a Small Entity fee (less fees!). Furthermore, any inventor who cannot afford an attorney can file pro se, whereby the PTO must assist the inventor in the patent prosecution process, at no additional charge).

Quote:

Original post by chronos Curiously, you have chosen to ignore the quote by a patent examiner concerning the difficulties of narrowing down the results of a patent search.

This boils down to probability: a reasonable online search by a small company may not be as thorough as a skilled patent lawfirm, however there is no guarantee that the more expensive search will find all relevant material. One (potentially disgruntled) patent examiner does not speak for the entire PTO.

Quote:

Original post by chronos Clearly you have strong opinions and more than a passing interest in the subject of software patents. Is it possible, perhaps, that you too might be biased? I wonder, do you hold or intend to apply for any patents yourself?

If I developed something truly novel, and research indicated the invention was highly marketable (or it's to my advantage to prevent imitation), why wouldn't I patent it? If Eelco's invention (from which this discussion was spawned) is truly novel, and does what he says it will do (with no unforeseen flaws), as a student it's in his best interest to profit from it. His profit would not hurt other fellow developers (who knows, maybe it will create jobs and he'll hire you ;-)). Other developers are not currently using his invention: nothing would be taken away from them.

Quote:

Original post by chronos PS - I don't know how helpful it is to be handed a short list of patents and patent applications. If software developers did not have to worry about more than a handful of patents, life would be a lot simpler.

I completely agree, but that's not the world we live in. My point is to do the best you can given the circumstances (i.e. learn about patents and the patent process as outlined above). If one is against patents for philosophical reasons, they can spend their time shooting down (invalidating) bogus patent applications as they become available at the PTO.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster I was going to write a particle system, but now I am so sure if I should. I will tell my employer we cannot render particle in the game. I am considering calling it quick and going back to farming. Hopefully, there are not patents on that I am traumatized here man

I think they only patented red particles. If you go with green and blue, you should be OK.

No, you don't want to go back to farming: that industry patented out years ago (believe it or not, there's a patent to add aspirin to pig feed, which makes the pig fatter faster [cool]).

Hah. Next time some feature is too hard to implement, all we have to do is tell the publisher "It's patented by someone else. They say they will license it to us for $2m. Do you STILL want us to implement it?"

I'd love to see the look on their faces.

Quote:

Original post by John Schultz 2nd sentence: I work in a small company: patents have not made life more difficult (nor for any of the other small companies I have worked with. The expert witness case was two larger companies squaring off);

Are you so self-centered that you think your experiences are somehow representative of the industry as a whole?

Quote:

Quote: The fact is that software patents make life more difficult for small companies, self-help or otherwise. your statement is false and misleading, with no basis whatsoever in fact.

Wouldn't life be easier if you didn't have to worry about software patents? If you could use a "ghost car" system in your game without worrying about losing your shirt? If you didn't have "to be careful" that you "don't step on the claims in said patents [or any other patent, for that matter]"? According to you "it's not a big deal", but I'm sure there are many people who disagree.

Quote:

Anyone and everyone will be helped by arming themselves with knowledge about how patents work and are used in the business world.

I completely agree.

Quote:

I argue that reading alarmist websites with dubious backers and not reading about how patents actually work is dangerous for a software developer.

What you call an alarmist position is shared by numerous important figures such as John Carmack, Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, Lawrence Lessig, and many others. Since this is a game development forum, John Carmack's comments on his experience with the now famous "Carmack's Reverse" patent are relevant and important:

"The patent situation well and truly sucks. We were prepared to use a two-pass algorithm that gave equivalent results at a speed hit, but we negotiated the deal with Creative so that we were able to use the zfail method without having to actually pay any cash. It was tempting to take a stand and say that our products were never going to use any advanced Creative/3dlabs products because of their position on patenting gaming software algorithms, but that would only have hurt the users."

Quote:

b). Ignore the issue and hope for the best (certainly low stress, but probably not very wise).

Similarly, pretending that patents are less of a problem than they actually are is very low stress and just as unwise.

Quote:

c). Spend time arguing+debating the value of the patent system (which we cannot change (in a timely manner)), spreading disinformation about how it is bad for smaller companies, and not actually creating anything worth patenting to begin with. This option carries high stress and no benefit to anyone.

I'm sure that hacks like Carmack, Torvalds, Stallman, Gamedev.net's own Yann Lombard and other opponents of software patents have never created "anything worth patenting to begin with". After all, only incompetent people -- with nothing to show or protect -- are opposed to software patents.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by chronos Curiously, you have chosen to ignore the quote by a patent examiner concerning the difficulties of narrowing down the results of a patent search. This boils down to probability: a reasonable online search by a small company may not be as thorough as a skilled patent lawfirm, however there is no guarantee that the more expensive search will find all relevant material. One (potentially disgruntled) patent examiner does not speak for the entire PTO.

The point is that a lot of work is involved, even for a patent examiner. As for being disgruntled, that's just a cheap shot on your part and has no bearing whatsoever on the validity (or lack thereof) of his claim.

Quote:

If Eelco's invention (from which this discussion was spawned) is truly novel, and does what he says it will do (with no unforeseen flaws), as a student it's in his best interest to profit from it.

Which brings us back to the reason why you started this thread. You claim it's intended to help other developers, but clearly it is intended as a defense of the patent system by downplaying the actual risks involved. In the end your posts all boil down to "it's not a big deal, don't worry about it."

a sort-of related issue:

o.o

Quote:

Original post by chronos Quote: Original post by John Schultz 2nd sentence: I work in a small company: patents have not made life more difficult (nor for any of the other small companies I have worked with. The expert witness case was two larger companies squaring off); Are you so self-centered that you think your experiences are somehow representative of the industry as a whole?

Nah. I've been working in this industry since it began. I only witnessed one patent related situation. You made a general statement about small companies. My personal experience differs from your general statement. I might agree to a statement such as, "some small companies (such as id vs Creative) have chosen to change their software to get around patent issues". Did id lose any money? While I don't know Carmack personally (I have met him and been to his office years ago when showing him how we ported Quake to stereoscopic 3D (which reminds me: H3D's product was well patented)), I empathize that being forced to change software because of a patent (on what appears to be) simple/obvious, sucks.

My point has been and continues to be, deal with it the best you can by learning as much as you can about the process. Then, if one opposes the patent system, do one's best to get bogus patents thrown out before they're issued. If one does not philosophically oppose the patent system (especially a student or small company) they can protect and license their invention without being ripped off by bigger companies.

Quote:

Wouldn't life be easier if you didn't have to worry about software patents? If you could use a "ghost car" system in your game without worrying about losing your shirt? If you didn't have "to be careful" that you "don't step on the claims in said patents [or any other patent, for that matter]"? According to you "it's not a big deal", but I'm sure there are many people who disagree.

I agree, it would be nice not to have to worry aboutdeal with these issues. But, this is the system we are stuck with. I was pretty upset when the company I testified for settled without a fight. Now, years later, I understand why they did it.

Quote:

What you call an alarmist position is shared by numerous important figures such as John Carmack, Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, Lawrence Lessig, and many others.

I appreciate what anti-patent and free software people are trying to accomplish. Until the system changes, businesses have to operate under the conditions of the market (and for better or worse, the patent system, at least until a better system is in place).

Quote:

Quote: b). Ignore the issue and hope for the best (certainly low stress, but probably not very wise). Similarly, pretending that patents are less of a problem than they actually are is very low stress and just as unwise.

Again, I'm stating: work with the system the best you can. A common philosophy regarding things one cannot change: don't worry about it ("no big deal"). I don't see a totally free software and a patent-less system happening any time soon.

Quote:

I'm sure that hacks like Carmack, Torvalds, Stallman, Gamedev.net's own Yann Lombard and other opponents of software patents have never created "anything worth patenting to begin with". After all, only incompetent people -- with nothing to show or protect -- are opposed to software patents.

I guess that makes me incompetent too, as I am opposed to software patents (as the system currently stands). Since it is my goal to create commercial software for a living, I chose to work with the system the best I can. Unfortunately, it will take somebody with Bill Gates money to make significant changes to software patent situation (he's given away billions to education/charities: perhaps he'll help the software patent situation after he retires).

Quote:

The point is that a lot of work is involved, even for a patent examiner. As for being disgruntled, that's just a cheap shot on your part and has no bearing whatsoever on the validity (or lack thereof) of his claim.

Do you believe that someone who enjoys working (and is still employed) at the PTO would make such a statement in public? In any case, one examiner's opinion is not a valid representation of the entire organization.

Quote:

Quote: If Eelco's invention (from which this discussion was spawned) is truly novel, and does what he says it will do (with no unforeseen flaws), as a student it's in his best interest to profit from it. Which brings us back to the reason why you started this thread. You claim it's intended to help other developers, but clearly it is intended as a defense of the patent system by downplaying the actual risks involved. In the end your posts all boil down to "it's not a big deal, don't worry about it."

My only defense of the patent system is that there is currently no better system on this planet (especially in protecting small entities from big ones). When a better system is proposed, I'll be behind it (vote, talk, whatever I can do to help). Downplaying risks? No. Pragmatic. Complaining and not doing anything about it is not efficient (how about proposing a better system based on economics mathematics, game theory, etc.?). Don't worry about things one cannot change. Do the best you can in the world in which you live.

i also think patents give the holder too much power.

protecting ideas is certainly a good concept, but being able to infringe on something unknowingly is indeed a tad twisted. 'oh you infringed on our patent. did you know that as of today it costs (insane amount of money here)? well, now you do'

the power given to the patent holder should be limited. maybe we should only give someone protection of his idea up to a certain amount of money, so you can never be shafted too hard afterwards? then again, how would you go about quantifying such outside of market forces?