ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Software patent quality worse than all other fields"

(References)
m (Reverted edits by 99.89.30.11 (Talk) to last revision by Ciaran)
Line 30: Line 30:
 
* [http://eupat.ffii.org/analysis/trivial/ Why are Software Patents so Trivial?] [http://www.ffii.org/Why_software_patents_are_trivial other version (possibly identical)]
 
* [http://eupat.ffii.org/analysis/trivial/ Why are Software Patents so Trivial?] [http://www.ffii.org/Why_software_patents_are_trivial other version (possibly identical)]
  
hSDfbc  <a href="http://pquezxccwkra.com/">pquezxccwkra</a>, [url=http://qveuvysujqdc.com/]qveuvysujqdc[/url], [link=http://nqomthxsxcxi.com/]nqomthxsxcxi[/link], http://bggxlkumstaq.com/
+
==References==
 +
{{reflist}}
 +
 
 +
 
 +
{{footer}}
 +
[[Category:Arguments]]

Revision as of 05:34, 6 September 2010

Quality problems can happen in any category of patents, but the quality of software patents is particularly bad. This is probably a fundamental problem that can't be avoided in a domain as abstract as software.

Possible reasons

  1. Abstract algorithms can be described in so many ways
  2. Jargon and lack of tangible components can make a mundane software idea sound technical
  3. Professionals working in the patents industry only see the ideas submitted for patenting, and therefore fail to realise that they are not qualitatively different from the ideas that good software engineers come up with every day of the week, most of which are considered too obvious to write up and publish

The ideas are too abstract

In chemistry, ideas are described concretely, such as Trans-6-[2-(3- or 4-carboxamido- substituted pyrrol-1-yl)alkyl]-4-hydroxypyran-2-ones.[1]

In software, ideas are described as "point of sale location", "material object", or "information manufacturing machine".

Examples

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

References