divide and conquer
July 13, 2006 6:35 AM Subscribe
Math gets a patent.
"The field of invention relates generally to performing division operations using processing components and, more specifically but not exclusively relates to techniques for performing efficient software-based integer division using reciprocal multiplication."
"The field of invention relates generally to performing division operations using processing components and, more specifically but not exclusively relates to techniques for performing efficient software-based integer division using reciprocal multiplication."
I'm gonna get a patent for the process of patenting the obvious and sue these bastards.
posted by fungible at 7:28 AM on July 13, 2006
posted by fungible at 7:28 AM on July 13, 2006
“The shareholders really deserved for us to look at intellectual property as an asset and to utilize it fully,” explains Snyder, a board member at the time who later became CEO.
Think of thechildren shareholders!
posted by namespan at 7:35 AM on July 13, 2006
Think of the
posted by namespan at 7:35 AM on July 13, 2006
Yeah, as caddis said, it's only a patent application. Anyone can file an application claiming anything. How is this noteworthy?
posted by exogenous at 7:36 AM on July 13, 2006
posted by exogenous at 7:36 AM on July 13, 2006
Sounds like it's a bit more complex than patenting a/b = a * 1/b; I hope, at least ...
posted by scruss at 7:37 AM on July 13, 2006
posted by scruss at 7:37 AM on July 13, 2006
Yes, this is a published application, not yet granted. It hasn't even been examined yet ("Status: Not Yet Docketed").
I'm no computer scientist, but it sounds like a way for network equipment to quickly break packets into smaller evenly sized chunks.
posted by Joe Invisible at 7:37 AM on July 13, 2006
I'm no computer scientist, but it sounds like a way for network equipment to quickly break packets into smaller evenly sized chunks.
posted by Joe Invisible at 7:37 AM on July 13, 2006
But in fairness, the remaining links are more worthy.
posted by exogenous at 7:38 AM on July 13, 2006
posted by exogenous at 7:38 AM on July 13, 2006
Oh, and titles and abstracts are pretty unhelpful, sometimes useless, in figuring out what a patent (or application) is actually all about. The claims are where the action is.
posted by Joe Invisible at 7:41 AM on July 13, 2006
posted by Joe Invisible at 7:41 AM on July 13, 2006
The next thing you know someone is going to come along and patent the wheel (pdf).
posted by caddis at 7:42 AM on July 13, 2006
posted by caddis at 7:42 AM on July 13, 2006
Yes, this is a published application, not yet granted. It hasn't even been examined yet ("Status: Not Yet Docketed").
That's right. This isn't (yet) an example of the patent office issuing a dodgy patent.
What this IS is yet another example of a patent attorney fleecing an inventor into paying him (or her) five to ten thousand United States dollars to prepare and file an application for a patent that doesn't have a hope in hell of being granted - and even less chance of being enforceable if by chance it does get granted. There's the scandal.
posted by three blind mice at 8:03 AM on July 13, 2006
That's right. This isn't (yet) an example of the patent office issuing a dodgy patent.
What this IS is yet another example of a patent attorney fleecing an inventor into paying him (or her) five to ten thousand United States dollars to prepare and file an application for a patent that doesn't have a hope in hell of being granted - and even less chance of being enforceable if by chance it does get granted. There's the scandal.
posted by three blind mice at 8:03 AM on July 13, 2006
three blind mice: Assuming the invention has no chance of issuing to a valid patent, how do you know it was a "patent attorney fleecing an inventor" and not a committed inventor telling the patent attorney to file the application as is, or he would take the work elsewhere? Do you think the attorney has a responsibility to talk the client out of trying?
posted by exogenous at 8:12 AM on July 13, 2006
posted by exogenous at 8:12 AM on July 13, 2006
...and not a committed inventor telling the patent attorney to file the application as is, or he would take the work elsewhere?
No one's putting a gun to her head.
Do you think the attorney has a responsibility to talk the client out of trying?
Sure. All inventors no matter how wacky deserve to have professional representation. But wacky inventor aside, there are more than a few who should be dissuaded and not encouraged in spending money obtaining patents.
As evidenced by the increasing levels of sewage flowing into the patent office, it seems clear to me that this does not always happen.
As with any professional, a patent attorney should lay out the facts as best she can, give unbiased advice, and accept the consequences of that. Attorneys (and agents) that sign their names to some of the rubbish being filed with the USPTO deserve scorn not understanding.
posted by three blind mice at 8:50 AM on July 13, 2006
No one's putting a gun to her head.
Do you think the attorney has a responsibility to talk the client out of trying?
Sure. All inventors no matter how wacky deserve to have professional representation. But wacky inventor aside, there are more than a few who should be dissuaded and not encouraged in spending money obtaining patents.
As evidenced by the increasing levels of sewage flowing into the patent office, it seems clear to me that this does not always happen.
As with any professional, a patent attorney should lay out the facts as best she can, give unbiased advice, and accept the consequences of that. Attorneys (and agents) that sign their names to some of the rubbish being filed with the USPTO deserve scorn not understanding.
posted by three blind mice at 8:50 AM on July 13, 2006
I'm gonna get a patent for the process of patenting the obvious and sue these bastards.
You are so getting sued, fungible. Or. we can settle oputof court for, say, USD$10.000 per infringing word? My lawyer will be contacting you shortly.
posted by signal at 9:09 AM on July 13, 2006
You are so getting sued, fungible. Or. we can settle oputof court for, say, USD$10.000 per infringing word? My lawyer will be contacting you shortly.
posted by signal at 9:09 AM on July 13, 2006
I'm not entirely sure, but this seems to be a method in which one could remove the silicon logic for the DIVIDE function from processor and replace it with microcode using the other operations. The upshot this method being that it's novel and faster than previous software only versions.
Is that what other people got out?
Is does sound novel, although I'm not sure about patentable.
posted by PissOnYourParade at 9:19 AM on July 13, 2006
Is that what other people got out?
Is does sound novel, although I'm not sure about patentable.
posted by PissOnYourParade at 9:19 AM on July 13, 2006
The abstract and title have basically zero legal weight. No one in the process, examiner, judges, etc, even read them that closely.
What matters is the claims:
1. A method comprising: determining a constant to be used as a divisor in an integer division operation having a variable dividend in a pre-defined range; determining parameters to be employed in a combination of multiplication, shift, and optional add operations on a processing element to perform the integer division operation, the parameters including a minimal multiplier and shift instruction to produce the same result as a corresponding mathematical integer division operation on the variable dividend using the constant divisor.
Look at all that qualifying language, particularly "minimal multiplier and shift instruction to produce the same result..."
It's fun to trash patents now, but this doesn't sound like any math I ever did on paper, nor does it sound like how division is implemented either in processors or in any major programming lanugage with which I am familiar. This sounds new, based on a quick review.
And as someone pointed out, it is not allowed yet, so this claim, for example, could change and become even narrower.
Do you think the attorney has a responsibility to talk the client out of trying?
Sure. All inventors no matter how wacky deserve to have professional representation. But wacky inventor aside, there are more than a few who should be dissuaded and not encouraged in spending money obtaining patents.
I disagree a little here. The patent, while a legal document, describe an invention in a way that people in the field (i.e. programmers, comp hardware folks, compiler designers, etc) would be familiar with.
If a client, who has a lot of experience in their field, thinks they invented something, then I don't think its the attorneys place to judge it. The attorney should of course do a search to see if someone else invented in first.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:23 AM on July 13, 2006
Do you really know that this doesn't have a hope in hell of being granted? Look at the claims: it's not trying to claim division by integer. Can you really say that (for example)
"13. The method of claim 9, further comprising: employing the equation, ceil(x/C)=(((x*floor(K)-1)>>n)+1), to determine the parameters to be employed in the multiplication, shift, and optional add instructions, wherein x is the variable packet or frame size, C is the constant divisor, n defines the number of bits to shift, and K=(2.sup.n/C). "
is old or obvious, without searching the prior art? I certainly can't say. If the attorney had a good faith reason to believe that the application has something patentable in it, he wasn't fleecing anyone.
I certainly agree that attorneys or agents filing unpatentable applications deserve scorn; I'm just not convinced that this is one.
posted by Joe Invisible at 9:30 AM on July 13, 2006
"13. The method of claim 9, further comprising: employing the equation, ceil(x/C)=(((x*floor(K)-1)>>n)+1), to determine the parameters to be employed in the multiplication, shift, and optional add instructions, wherein x is the variable packet or frame size, C is the constant divisor, n defines the number of bits to shift, and K=(2.sup.n/C). "
is old or obvious, without searching the prior art? I certainly can't say. If the attorney had a good faith reason to believe that the application has something patentable in it, he wasn't fleecing anyone.
I certainly agree that attorneys or agents filing unpatentable applications deserve scorn; I'm just not convinced that this is one.
posted by Joe Invisible at 9:30 AM on July 13, 2006
Also, I'd like to get on my soapbox for a minute.
The patent system sucks, but not for the reasons most people think. IT sucks because it allows crappy patents while simultaneously blocking real inventions from being patented.
Case in point: software. Everyone in the fashinable districts of the interwebs hate software patents, but why? Why is an improved software method to compress an image (JPEG, GIF, etc) any less of an invention than a gearbox that is slightly better than the tens of thousands of gearboxes already patented?
I think the reason is because of the nature of software allowing someone to implement, use and distribute code based on that invention. You can't copy a gearbox without machine tools, expensive material, precision equiment, etc. Software is easy.
Also, software is one of the few remaining fields where the U.S. leads, the other being pharmaceuticals. Funny how throughout the world, people have latched onto those two things as being inappropriate for patents. Call me skeptical.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:30 AM on July 13, 2006
The patent system sucks, but not for the reasons most people think. IT sucks because it allows crappy patents while simultaneously blocking real inventions from being patented.
Case in point: software. Everyone in the fashinable districts of the interwebs hate software patents, but why? Why is an improved software method to compress an image (JPEG, GIF, etc) any less of an invention than a gearbox that is slightly better than the tens of thousands of gearboxes already patented?
I think the reason is because of the nature of software allowing someone to implement, use and distribute code based on that invention. You can't copy a gearbox without machine tools, expensive material, precision equiment, etc. Software is easy.
Also, software is one of the few remaining fields where the U.S. leads, the other being pharmaceuticals. Funny how throughout the world, people have latched onto those two things as being inappropriate for patents. Call me skeptical.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:30 AM on July 13, 2006
I certainly agree that attorneys or agents filing unpatentable applications deserve scorn; I'm just not convinced that this is one.
posted by Joe Invisible at 12:30 PM EST on July 13 [+fave] [!]
Most of them that get bandied about aren't deserving of scorn. Has anyone actually read the claims of the Amazon one-click patent? It claims considerably more than just "one-click". OR how about the notorious Microsoft "double-click" patent, that actually claimed something very different from a double-click.
If these things were so painfully obvious, then the internet would be flooded with example of prior art from before the filing date (not the date it was granted). But we don't see that.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:33 AM on July 13, 2006
Exactly, Pastabagel. But try telling that to the /. crowd.
posted by Joe Invisible at 9:39 AM on July 13, 2006
posted by Joe Invisible at 9:39 AM on July 13, 2006
If these things were so painfully obvious, then the internet would be flooded with example of prior art from before the filing date (not the date it was granted). But we don't see that.
More than a decade ago, at the USPTO’s 1994 public hearings on software patenting, Bernhard A. Galler of the Software Patent Institute (SPI) noted:
The history of inventions in the software area is not recorded well. There are a few formal journals, such as the Annals of the History of Computing, and some textbooks, but the prior art that is needed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is not available in many of the forms that more mature fields support. For example, in the fields of chemistry or physics, in addition to a large number of patents available to the USPTO, most research results are published in a relatively few journals. This is certainly not the case in the software community. Not only are results and inventions not published in formal journals most of the time, they are usually described, if at all, primarily in informal conference reports or newsletters. Add to that the almost complete lack of issued patents before 1981 in this field, and it is clear why USPTO examiners have a difficult time finding prior art, even when previous work that is relevant is well known in the field.
posted by three blind mice at 9:40 AM on July 13, 2006
More than a decade ago, at the USPTO’s 1994 public hearings on software patenting, Bernhard A. Galler of the Software Patent Institute (SPI) noted:
The history of inventions in the software area is not recorded well. There are a few formal journals, such as the Annals of the History of Computing, and some textbooks, but the prior art that is needed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is not available in many of the forms that more mature fields support. For example, in the fields of chemistry or physics, in addition to a large number of patents available to the USPTO, most research results are published in a relatively few journals. This is certainly not the case in the software community. Not only are results and inventions not published in formal journals most of the time, they are usually described, if at all, primarily in informal conference reports or newsletters. Add to that the almost complete lack of issued patents before 1981 in this field, and it is clear why USPTO examiners have a difficult time finding prior art, even when previous work that is relevant is well known in the field.
posted by three blind mice at 9:40 AM on July 13, 2006
What this IS is yet another example of a patent attorney fleecing an inventor into paying him (or her) five to ten thousand United States dollars to prepare and file an application for a patent that doesn't have a hope in hell of being granted - and even less chance of being enforceable if by chance it does get granted.
As (currently) a patent advisor and (formerly) a patent examiner, I can tell you it is virtually impossible to convince a determined aspiring patentee to reconsider the practicality of pushing for a patent even if the subject-matter is unpatentable or even unworkable.
posted by Skeptic at 10:07 AM on July 13, 2006
As (currently) a patent advisor and (formerly) a patent examiner, I can tell you it is virtually impossible to convince a determined aspiring patentee to reconsider the practicality of pushing for a patent even if the subject-matter is unpatentable or even unworkable.
posted by Skeptic at 10:07 AM on July 13, 2006
The history of inventions in the software area is not recorded well. There are a few formal journals, such as the Annals of the History of Computing, and some textbooks, but the prior art that is needed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is not available in many of the forms that more mature fields support.
This is why the patent office sucks. The history of inventions happens to be the most well-recorded of any technical field. The inventions are recorded in software.
Think of all that source code in CVS on sourceforge and freshmeat. Think of all those technical books from Wrox, sams etc. All those usenet groups.
In the event the code/methods arene't publicaly available , they arene't prior art anyway. If a compnay keeps some software a trade secret, tough. Patents are still valid over prior trade secret users.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:10 AM on July 13, 2006
This is why the patent office sucks. The history of inventions happens to be the most well-recorded of any technical field. The inventions are recorded in software.
Think of all that source code in CVS on sourceforge and freshmeat. Think of all those technical books from Wrox, sams etc. All those usenet groups.
In the event the code/methods arene't publicaly available , they arene't prior art anyway. If a compnay keeps some software a trade secret, tough. Patents are still valid over prior trade secret users.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:10 AM on July 13, 2006
Just from the description (I can't be arsed to read the whole thing) this sounds like an integer division algorithm described in chapter 10 of Hacker's Delight (Henry S Warren Jr, copyright 2003 Addison-Wesley). He cites an article from 1991 which presumably contains most of the same ideas.
'Sides, math ain't patentable.
posted by hattifattener at 10:21 AM on July 13, 2006
'Sides, math ain't patentable.
posted by hattifattener at 10:21 AM on July 13, 2006
dang it, i thought it was a METH patent. you had me all excited. math is like good for your brain, right?
posted by gorgor_balabala at 10:47 AM on July 13, 2006
posted by gorgor_balabala at 10:47 AM on July 13, 2006
Distaste for math patents is entirely due to anti-Americanism. Sure. *rolls eyes*
The main reason people don't like software patents is the way they're used, not because the software is that great, but because it's used to prevent inoperability and increase lock in.
For example, Microsoft could create some new crypto system; one that doesn’t do anything any other standard crypto system does and patents it. Then, they put that technology into windows not because it makes it better, but because it prevents compatibility. No body benefits from any new technology, and everyone loses.
Another example is a ridiculous patent on using hexadecimal for internationalized domains. Say you had the domain name 中国人.com. Someone applied for a patent on using the hexadecimal representation of that so that it could work with older browsers, network software, etc. Because of that patent, a non-encoded UTF8 form might have had to be used, requiring a lot of rewriting. Although I'm not sure what happened in that case.
The reason software patents are bad is because it's entirely impractical to do it. Copyrights are enough protection for software.
posted by delmoi at 12:05 PM on July 13, 2006
The main reason people don't like software patents is the way they're used, not because the software is that great, but because it's used to prevent inoperability and increase lock in.
For example, Microsoft could create some new crypto system; one that doesn’t do anything any other standard crypto system does and patents it. Then, they put that technology into windows not because it makes it better, but because it prevents compatibility. No body benefits from any new technology, and everyone loses.
Another example is a ridiculous patent on using hexadecimal for internationalized domains. Say you had the domain name 中国人.com. Someone applied for a patent on using the hexadecimal representation of that so that it could work with older browsers, network software, etc. Because of that patent, a non-encoded UTF8 form might have had to be used, requiring a lot of rewriting. Although I'm not sure what happened in that case.
The reason software patents are bad is because it's entirely impractical to do it. Copyrights are enough protection for software.
posted by delmoi at 12:05 PM on July 13, 2006
Distaste for math patents is entirely due to anti-Americanism
I'm not sure anyone said anything like that, but I did suggest that some countries that have little pharmaceutical or software innovation are willing to prohibit patents in those fields to prevent US firms from dominating those industries in their countries.
The main reason people don't like software patents is the way they're used, not because the software is that great, but because it's used to prevent inoperability and increase lock in.
Every patent does this. That's the point of patents - to exclude others from doing what you invented. Can you use Honda parts on your BMW?
A patent is not an award for best invention, it's a right granted to any invention in exchage for disclosing it to the public.
Some patents may be used stupidly. Fine. The market will deal with that. IE is probably covered by a bunch of MS patents, that doesn't prevent Firefox from gaining market share.
posted by Pastabagel at 1:11 PM on July 13, 2006
I'm not sure anyone said anything like that, but I did suggest that some countries that have little pharmaceutical or software innovation are willing to prohibit patents in those fields to prevent US firms from dominating those industries in their countries.
The main reason people don't like software patents is the way they're used, not because the software is that great, but because it's used to prevent inoperability and increase lock in.
Every patent does this. That's the point of patents - to exclude others from doing what you invented. Can you use Honda parts on your BMW?
A patent is not an award for best invention, it's a right granted to any invention in exchage for disclosing it to the public.
Some patents may be used stupidly. Fine. The market will deal with that. IE is probably covered by a bunch of MS patents, that doesn't prevent Firefox from gaining market share.
posted by Pastabagel at 1:11 PM on July 13, 2006
Let me give you an example I like to use.
Consider AIDS vaccines. Inventing a new AIDS vaccine/therapy is obviously very difficult and very expensive. It's not something someone comes up with in a garage. It's going to be drug cos and govt funded research to the tune of billions right?
But we know the second anyone cures aids, countires throughout the world are simply going to produce the vaccine, not pay the insanely high royalties, to cure their populations. That's expected, and morally acceptable.
By knowing this in advance, why would you spend the money on the research if you can't make it back?
So drug companies won't spend the money on the research, unless the government subsidizes it. And this is in fact what has happened, not only with AIDS, but with flu vaccines and cancer research also.
So they spend money on other things, Viagra, Cialis, psychiatric medications, etc.
posted by Pastabagel at 1:19 PM on July 13, 2006
It is the job of the patent office to determine what is patentable, not the attorney filing the application. Of course, the attorney cannot and should not make any misrepresentations, but currently there is no duty to search the prior art.
The USPTO wants to change things to place a larger burden on applicants. This is supposed to solve some of their problems, such as the incredibly long backlogs in examining certain technologies.
posted by exogenous at 1:56 PM on July 13, 2006
The USPTO wants to change things to place a larger burden on applicants. This is supposed to solve some of their problems, such as the incredibly long backlogs in examining certain technologies.
posted by exogenous at 1:56 PM on July 13, 2006
The USPTO is getting a little push back on that proposal as it will dramatically increase the cost of obtaining a patent. Patent attorneys will profit handsomely, small inventors will get crushed, and expenses for companies will rise. In the end, it is still unlikely to stem the tide of junk patents.
posted by caddis at 2:05 PM on July 13, 2006
posted by caddis at 2:05 PM on July 13, 2006
Pastabagel - Drug companies spend more on advertising than they do on research, and many many drug discoveries are actually funded by government agencies in the first place. So it's not like they're hurting for cash.
Besides, no one here is arguing against drug patents (as far as I can see). The discussion was about software patents, and not just software patents, but very very stupid, very very obvious software patents.
And yes, they can be fought, but who wants to have to fight a legal battle that shouldn't have been necessary in the first place?
posted by bshort at 2:06 PM on July 13, 2006
Besides, no one here is arguing against drug patents (as far as I can see). The discussion was about software patents, and not just software patents, but very very stupid, very very obvious software patents.
And yes, they can be fought, but who wants to have to fight a legal battle that shouldn't have been necessary in the first place?
posted by bshort at 2:06 PM on July 13, 2006
Skeptic at 10:07 said: it is virtually impossible to convince a determined aspiring patentee to reconsider the practicality of pushing for a patent...
I have a patent pending and before I bore the work and expense of filing the application and subsequent responses and appeal, I depended on the patent lawyers' opinion regarding my chances for patent protection and enforcement.
I rely on the reputation of a law firm to refuse work not in my best interest.
/ ok, I admit I snickered when I said reputation of a law firm.
posted by surplus at 7:55 PM on July 13, 2006
I have a patent pending and before I bore the work and expense of filing the application and subsequent responses and appeal, I depended on the patent lawyers' opinion regarding my chances for patent protection and enforcement.
I rely on the reputation of a law firm to refuse work not in my best interest.
/ ok, I admit I snickered when I said reputation of a law firm.
posted by surplus at 7:55 PM on July 13, 2006
« Older In Communist Russia, joke tells you! | Hair and fat and everything nice. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by bshort at 6:43 AM on July 13, 2006