ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Software does not make a computer a new machine"

(Not sure if the house analogy works)
m (quick update to the diff)
Line 98: Line 98:
 
:I'm worried that when I do finally get around to reading the texts you've added to various pages, I'll have to remove most of them. [[User:Ciaran|Ciaran]] 11:16, 24 November 2010 (EST)
 
:I'm worried that when I do finally get around to reading the texts you've added to various pages, I'll have to remove most of them. [[User:Ciaran|Ciaran]] 11:16, 24 November 2010 (EST)
  
::I did a bit of minor rewording and added a brief explanation of the goals of the longer comparisons. If you get further reading them (success) and have more criticisms, shoot. The moving around of a few paragraphs makes the diff kind of large, but you can see the changes here http://en.swpat.org/wiki?title=Software_does_not_make_a_computer_a_new_machine&action=historysubmit&diff=21410&oldid=21400 [[User:Jose X|Jose X]] 13:32, 24 November 2010 (EST)
+
::I did a bit of minor rewording and added a brief explanation of the goals of the longer comparisons. If you get further reading them (success) and have more criticisms, shoot. The moving around of a few paragraphs makes the diff kind of large, but you can see the changes here http://en.swpat.org/wiki?title=Software_does_not_make_a_computer_a_new_machine&action=historysubmit&diff=21413&oldid=21394 [[User:Jose X|Jose X]] 13:39, 24 November 2010 (EST)

Revision as of 14:39, 24 November 2010

Comparison with automobile patents

I don't think that this argument is comparable to automobile patents. The act of driving to a certain street does not involve creating anything new or useful. You are just using already acquired skills (driving, navigating) and goods (automobile, fuel) to achieve a certain goal (reach your targeted street). As opposed, developing a piece of software takes a lot of resources and time to create something distinctly new and potentially useful to a select group of individuals.
That this part of the argument seems to be poorly thought out and not enough to make the entire idea convincing. Creating software more similar to how the music industry uses patented equipment to create content (songs) which serves a specific purpose (entertainment). Music is uniformly regarded non-patentable, and would perhaps be a better argument. Share your thoughts on this. Unauthorized 06:15, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

The analogy should be improved alright. Music, and literature are indeed good arguments. They're discussed on the analogies page. If you think you can help us improve this article or any other, please do. Ciaran 07:44, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Weak arguments

I don't think the argument works. So if a hammer and chisel is patented, anything you make from the hammer and chisel can't be patented? The wright brothers used patented saws, screws, wire, and fabric to make an airplane.. Does that mean they shouldn't have received a patent for it?

All inventions combine other, less specific technologies to create a new, specific thing that does something valuable.

The problem people have with software patents is only that they can't touch it. I also think software engineers don't like software patents because they are already familiar with the technology, and can envision themselves coming up with it... So to them, its not that impressive. I'd imagine the germans working on airplanes in 1901 didn't think wright should receive a patent either "Oh, he just combined what I found and what he found" etc

This page certainly needs improvement (feel free to jump in). One difference between software patents and the Wright brothers is that the latter made something that was physically different from what existed before. With software and a computer, the end result is just a computer. As one EPO patent examiner said when rejecting a particular software patent "The computer could already do that; you just programmed it to do so". Ciaran 19:48, 18 September 2010 (EDT)

Not sure if the house analogy works

I haven't read the whole text, but it seems to be at least ambiguous about whether it's an analogy for hardware or software.

Computers (hardware) are patentable and we've no problem with that.

Ways of ventilating buildings can also be patentable, and we've also no problem with that.

If someone wants to patent a computer-controlled way of curing rubber (Diehr), or operating a washing machine,[1], or Anti-lock braking - that's all fine. Those aren't software innovations, they're curing, washing, and braking innovations.

What we're against is computer-controlled innovations in areas such as storing audio (mp3), video, and interactive displays of information (webpages).

Calculators and piano-players are good examples because they can't be used to do anything patentable. A house with automatic doors is different because there are patentable applications. It could be used as a mouse trap, and mouse traps are patentable. (A silly example, but there are so many, I just picked one.) Ciaran 11:33, 23 November 2010 (EST)

The house is patentable. It is patented once when created. Here ends the patentability -- as concerns the making on machines.
When you add software to "create a new machine", THEN, in contrast to when you built the computing house, you are not creating a new machine.
To explain to someone that doesn't know what software is that in fact you are not adding anything, I state very roughly how a computer works (by focusing on a computing house that uses familiar doors) and in so doing recognize that software is nothing but the opening and closing of doors on this house. If you open and close the doors a particular way, you enable the house to effect the algorithm encoded into those doors (as opened or closed configuration of doors).
This analogy tries to get to the essence of software being information (a configuration of open/close) and not an actual new machine. Any suggestions or rewritings that will improve this are welcomed. Jose X 17:13, 23 November 2010 (EST)
I've now read the first paragraph and a half, and I think there's indeed the above problem. Quite simply, changing the configuration of doors in a house can create a new machine. It can create a mouse trap. It can create a fan. It can create a security tunnel through which people can only flow in one direction.
No. If you change the door structure or capabilities, then perhaps you would be creating a new mousetrap. I stated that we are dealing only with changing the configuration on an existing system into its accepted states. You might want to call this a process patent but it is not the creation of a new machine. If I take scissors and open them to a particular angle to help hold a particular window open or to help cut down a mouse in size, I am using the same "machine" for a new purpose but have not created a new machine unless I change the hardware in some way beyond what it already supports as its intended usage. Jose X 02:55, 24 November 2010 (EST)
The "new machine" problem comes from patent applications which say that by configuring a computer to play MP3s, it's no longer a computer, it's an MP3 playing machine. There's never any talk of changing the structure or capabilities of the computer. This trick would not work with a calculator or a piano player - no judge would accept that either has been turned into a new machine. But this trick would work with your house. It's a house, but if I configure it to shut the doors when a mouse enters, it is no longer a house, it has become a mouse trap and mouse traps are patentable subject matter. The house turns into a construction material of the invention (mouse trap).
No, you don't shut the door on a mouse. The doors only hold information. It's just information processing. The piano playing of the information, perhaps after having been calculated with the calculator, corresponds to a display screen showing the information of pixel values calculated with the computer. Jose X 08:55, 24 November 2010 (EST)
You have to compare the materials before and after. Before, there's a house. After, there's a mouse trap. When you remove the non-patentable stuff (the house), you have to look at whether the stuff that's left (mouse trap) is patentable subject matter. With a calculator, before and after having a sum keyed into it, finished thing minus the pre-existing (non-innovative) thing, leaves a sum. Not patentable. Same for the piano player with new sheet music. We say the same goes for software. But this does not work for your house. Many things can be done with the house to produce a patentable innovation. (The page In re Alappat (1994, USA) is a good read for this topic) Ciaran 08:33, 24 November 2010 (EST)
The sum left by the calculator is the new wav file data left by the computer simulating mp3 calculations.
The house components can be changed in capabilities but that is changing the hardware, not changing the software.
Calling a computer an mp3 player is calling a paper with certain writings on it a contract or a will or a mortgage or an instruction manual. The information on the paper does nothing physically functional. A person can then do something with that information. A robot can then do something with that information. A sophisticated cooking machine can then do something with that information. A computer application can then do something with that information. The human, robot, cooking machine, or computer application do not become a new physical object, they simply take on a different label we create as humans to describe its new use. This page is about new machines not about process patents. Jose X 09:02, 24 November 2010 (EST)
A computer is a machine able to perform mathematics (a glorified calculator or very fast human) on data. Some of the data (instructions) defines what mathematics to perform on the other data. It's nothing but information processing. It's nothing but seeing which doors are open or closed (instructions) and using that to decide how to modify other doors (data).
The other examples are good because they liken computers to other things whose use is never patentable. Use of a calculator, use of a piano player, is never patentable. Likening computers to these things supports our policy. You've likened computers to something that can be used for patentable things.
On a stylistic note, the other examples also have the benefit of being simple, which is good because we're trying to simplify this topic for politicians and judges. Maybe if your text was much shorter and simpler, the problems (or lack there of if I'm just misunderstanding your text) would be easier to spot so the text can be fixed (or removed if it's fundamentally flawed). Ciaran 17:48, 23 November 2010 (EST)
It may be beneficial to separate out that analogy into an article on what software is. Afterwards maybe create a simple analogy making a reference to the longer explanation.
OK, I don't consider your argument about legitimate. Before changing this page, can you give another run at it and see if you still think there is a logical flaw that would warrant scratching it or redoing it significantly? Jose X 02:55, 24 November 2010 (EST)
Maybe putting it on a new page would be a good idea. Template:Brainstorming could be used to encourage people to analyse it and provide comments. The scope of the new page is up to you. Ciaran 08:33, 24 November 2010 (EST)
We're trying to make things simple! Who's going to read all that? The more text you use, the higher the chances that the sceptical reader will find a problem with your analogy. Ciaran 08:48, 24 November 2010 (EST)
Look at the paragraphs at the very beginning.. before the "in more detail". The rest will have to be cleaned up and maybe posted elsewhere. lol Jose X 08:52, 24 November 2010 (EST)

Just updated the house analogy to mention machine vs process. Let me know what you think and remember that the top can be adjusted and then everything from "in more detail" onward removed. Jose X 09:13, 24 November 2010 (EST) Update: I removed the long stuff and now have a house analogy plus an mp3 simulator analogy. Jose X 09:41, 24 November 2010 (EST)

I can't review the text, I'm working on something else. I generally don't read any of your texts completely, they're too long. I read the first paragraph, find problems, and I tell you about them.
I read the first few words of your new "mp3" section and you're talking about your house again. That's the opposite of simplicity. Each example should stand on its own. I should not have to read the house section to understand anything about the mp3 section. The mp3 section should be a separate analogy so that there's an alternative for readers who find the house analogy to be poor.
Removed that reference. I considered removing it earlier but thought that someone that read the house example right above it might gain a little from mentioning house. Jose X 12:40, 24 November 2010 (EST)
I haven't read much of your new medical calculations text but already I can imagine that there will be problems because medical systems (including, surprisingly, dosages) are patentable. If we try to argue that some medical idea is not patentable and that software is similar and therefor software should not be patentable, not only might we be committing an error in our comments about the patentability of the medical procedure, but we're also making life needlessly difficult by invoking opposition from the medical-patent community (who are very active, they submitted briefs for Bilski).
This example does not follow that pattern as it stands so it doesn't belong on that page I suppose. I used the opportunity to contrast software on computer (unpatentable) with hardware system (patentable) when they each compute the same algorithms.
I'll rethink the example or see if it can be used elsewhere. Jose X 12:40, 24 November 2010 (EST)
I read over the top part of the page, and I see a problem. The intro to the analogies states that all the analogies aim to show that using something a particular way is not patentable and this matches the software use scenario. I think patent lawyers, at least in the US, are trying to patent processes/uses. So some of the arguments I have been using are focused on the title of this page, to show that software does not make something a machine, rather than focusing on confidently stating that a "use" of something (like a car or calculator) is definitely not patentable, since some lawyers want it to be and the patent office is handing out some process patents. Jose X 12:53, 24 November 2010 (EST)
Update: I reorganized a bit the introduction to the analogies to enable some of the discussion (the longer analogies) to be more flexible. I also call then longer comparisons rather than longer analogies.
The object of the medical diagnostics and the mp3 sections as they stand now are to show that these pieces of hardware are not the same thing as software running on a computer. I mention how calling something by what it simulates does not make it be that thing physically.
The object of the house section is to give insight into just how intangible software is by looking at a house whose parts we can feel and touch vs trying to imagine electronics. It shows the nature of software and that this nature clearly is not new matter.
I'm worried that when I do finally get around to reading the texts you've added to various pages, I'll have to remove most of them. Ciaran 11:16, 24 November 2010 (EST)
I did a bit of minor rewording and added a brief explanation of the goals of the longer comparisons. If you get further reading them (success) and have more criticisms, shoot. The moving around of a few paragraphs makes the diff kind of large, but you can see the changes here http://en.swpat.org/wiki?title=Software_does_not_make_a_computer_a_new_machine&action=historysubmit&diff=21413&oldid=21394 Jose X 13:39, 24 November 2010 (EST)