[HN Gopher] No Source Code == No Patent
___________________________________________________________________
No Source Code == No Patent
Author : AlbertCory
Score : 274 points
Date : 2023-04-17 04:20 UTC (18 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (albertcory50.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (albertcory50.substack.com)
| nullc wrote:
| Patent applications I've been party to have included source code
| (maybe all of them? don't recall). I think it should be required.
| I'm not confident that it would actually solve a lot, but it
| would help.
|
| We mentioned source code in a position paper on patent policy I
| helped write a number of years ago,
| https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_com...
|
| --- For software, such disclosures are particularly poor, as the
| October 2003 FTC report on The Proper Balance of Competition and
| Patent Law Policy [7] notes: "Several panelists discounted the
| value of patent disclosures, because the disclosure of a software
| product's underlying source code is not required."
|
| [7] http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf ---
|
| The best counterargument I can make is that applicants would
| provide obfuscated or fake source code, just like the many other
| ways they cheat the application process.
|
| Still better than not requiring it. I liked the point that most
| counterarguments are effectively arguments that the patent absent
| the source doesn't constitute disclosure.
|
| > Believe it or not, many of the examiners in software have
| Computer Science backgrounds and are perfectly capable of this.
|
| I assume it's still the case that you need an appropriately
| shaped engineering degree, which does exclude many CS people.
|
| But absolutely it wouldn't be to surprising to see an examiner
| try to run the code. Even if they're not CS people they're
| technical and smart and would figure it out quick enough.
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| While I do think every software patent I have seen fails the
| enablement requirement (there is a bit of selection bias there I
| have only looked at ones people call out as horrific), I think
| requiring source is a bad idea.
|
| Something like what would come out of a clean room reverse
| engineering effort should be good enough.
| kazinator wrote:
| No buildable source code with build instructions and a test suite
| validating key input/output pairs ... no patent.
| frob wrote:
| When I was at one of the FAANGs, the corporate legal people
| wanted to make a patent for a recommendation system I was the
| tech lead on. They called me into a room with two patent layers
| for a disclosure meeting. In general, I have an issue with
| software parents, but I definitely didn't believe our work was
| patentable since everything seemed like an obvious extension of
| standard practices to me (think agents reaponding to events).
|
| I then proceeded to spend the next hour telling the lawyers that
| there is nothing novel in our system, that all of the connections
| and features would be obvious and intuitive to anyone familiar
| with the trade of software engineering, that all technologies in
| the system are common practices, and just in general refusing to
| let them reframe it in legalese to make it sound like something
| it wasn't. I could tell they were getting frustrated by the end,
| but it was one of the best hours I have ever spent. I'm proud I
| didn't let a megacorp patent standard software practices.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| This is about "obviousness" (103). That's next week's post.
| EGreg wrote:
| Spoiler alert: they patented it anyway [1] after he left [2]
|
| [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j_1lIFRdnhA
|
| [2] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O95fnszzI6I
| frob wrote:
| I check for it every few months. If they do publish it, I
| plan on filing a challenge with the PTO. It has now been long
| enough that I don't think it will be published.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Did they lead with "we award $x for each patent"?
| judge2020 wrote:
| I should say - 'did they forget to lead with'
| freejazz wrote:
| So, put it another way, you, a person with an axe to grind,
| decided to be completely unhelpful, because of the axe you have
| to grind? Inventiveness is a legal concept in the patent world,
| not exactly coextensive with whatever you seem to think the
| concept means in your head.
| fluoridation wrote:
| It sounds like they called him in to give his opinion and he
| did that. I don't see how that is unhelpful. An employee's
| job is not to ensure that the employer gets its way no matter
| what.
| freejazz wrote:
| Not saying it is, but he just sounds like a pain in the
| ass, not like someone that actually had a point.
| alexccrist wrote:
| those DALL-E images are terrible
| datpiff wrote:
| Yep, much worse than some free stock images
| ElfinTrousers wrote:
| My reaction to this article was "hmm, interesting point, OH GOD
| WHAT HAPPENED TO THESE PEOPLE IN THE PHOTO SOMEONE CALL A
| DOCTOR"
| hnbad wrote:
| A good bunch of comments here tapping into the old fallacy of
| "intellectual property is {good,bad} except in these other
| domains I don't understand the problems of and my work isn't
| directly affected by".
|
| I've yet to see a case against software patents that doesn't also
| apply to all other modern patents rather than being compared to
| some easily comprehensible mechanical contraptions from the
| 1920s.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| I once talked with someone who was writing a book about (among
| other things) how patents delayed development of aviation in
| the USA so much that they entered WW I without any aircraft of
| their own. (Despite the fact that the airplane was <ostensibly>
| invented in Ohio).
|
| So, your view might well be correct.
| hnbad wrote:
| Oh, to be clear, I'm not saying intellectual property is good
| or bad, or at least what I'm saying applies either way.
|
| What I'm saying is that if you make an argument either way
| for one specific domain you should consider whether it's
| really an argument about that specific domain or if that's
| just the only one for which you thought this through.
|
| People in tech are used to treating tech as a special case so
| it's worth considering whether you've really found the
| exception or just found out that you actually disagree with
| the rule. Sure, software patents seem special if you contrast
| them with ye olde fashioned mechanical device but that's
| arguing against a strawman.
| thfuran wrote:
| I don't think they seem particularly special even then.
| Patenting an algorithm to be implemented by levers doesn't
| seem so categorically different from patenting one to be
| implemented by transistors.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| No, they _are_ different.
|
| Read the automatic windshield wiper patents described in
| _Flash of Genius_. They provide circuit diagrams and
| explanations of why the wipers move faster when there 's
| a lot of rain.
| thfuran wrote:
| And you think it shouldn't have been patentable if it
| instead used a microcontroller to control the wipers even
| though the system is doing the same thing?
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I should have noted that "patentable" as you're raising
| it is a 101 issue. It IS important, but not part of this
| article:
|
| ============== There are four main sections of the U.S.
| statute governing patentability, and you only ever read
| about the first and third:
|
| 101: Patentable subject matter (what you can patent)
|
| 102: Anticipation (someone else invented or described it)
|
| 103: Obviousness (two or more references, taken together,
| describe it)
|
| 112: Specification (here's the statute)
|
| Most of what you read is about 101: is software a "thing"
| or is it a "mathematical formula" and thus not
| patentable?
| AlbertCory wrote:
| "patentable" ? maybe, and you'd have to disclose the
| source code.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Read some drug patents. They contain chemical formulas that a
| Third World company could easily implement, without the legal
| protection of the patent.
| dig1 wrote:
| Consider this: if math could be patented, IMHO we'd still be in
| the stone age. Maybe patents made sense two hundred years ago,
| but these days, they are mostly used as a tool for fighting
| between big corps and scaring the hell out of small players.
|
| On the other hand, if solo inventors do not know how to monetize
| their invention, they should give/sell it to someone who will
| know, not to milk the idea it for decades.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| > On the other hand, if solo inventors do not know how to
| monetize their invention, they should give/sell it to someone
| who will know, not to milk the idea it for decades.
|
| That's partly what patents are for. So a small inventor can
| sell a technology without getting reverse-engineered in the
| sales process. If they do get reverse-engineered, then there is
| a whole new set of patent customers who will buy the patents in
| order to sue over them.
| [deleted]
| denton-scratch wrote:
| I think the first software patents were for things like UI
| elements - the Lotus 1-2-3 design, or one-click ordering. I don't
| see any point in releasing code for something like that; the code
| is competely orthogonal to the design. You don't even need source
| to prove you are in posession of the invention; a working
| instantiation would seem quite sufficient.
|
| Code only becomes relevant if the "invention" amounts to an
| algorithm. But algorithms aren't eligible for patents are they?
| Well, they aren't here. So ironically, if you need to provide
| code to support your patent application, then you've proved you
| aren't eligible for a patent.
| onion2k wrote:
| A software patent without source code (or at least psuedo code)
| is effectively patenting "all possible implementions of this
| idea". That _should_ be considered too broad.
| BartjeD wrote:
| In concept you cannot (enforce) patented sky castles. But you
| may patent them.
|
| A patent becomes worthless when it is invalidated after you try
| to enforce it. The enforcement proceedings are the real legal
| test of a patent. The mere granting of a patent doesn't prove
| validty. Contrary to what lay people usually expect.
|
| The reasons for having this sort of system are mostly
| diplomatic, economic, and administrative, so far as a I
| understand.
|
| A) The patent system is an international patchwork B) For
| obvious reasons testing all inventions comprehensively is
| extremely time consuming. It would increase the cost to
| register patents. C) It's far more efficient to let the market
| sort it out by invalidating patents on sky castles when someone
| tries to enforce them.
| jacquesm wrote:
| One of the more interesting documents that accompany some
| patents is the examiners opinion as to the novelty,
| inventiveness and applicability of the patent.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| And this was what tripped up my team for years as we tried
| to patent a process we used to control a machine. No matter
| how we tried to narrow the claims, the examiner was always
| able to find some obscure prior art somewhere that they
| could use to reject the application. Finally, after about 3
| years of trying, our IP attorney suggested we drop it.
|
| It was probably this more than anyone else that made me
| realize that Patent Examiners are really, really good at
| their jobs and not just rubber stamps, as the software
| community seems to think.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > For obvious reasons testing all inventions comprehensively
| is extremely time consuming
|
| that's true, but the 112 section of the statute says you have
| to prove that you "have" the invention, with a Written
| Description and an Enabling specification. Examiners do make
| 112 rejections all the time. This merely implements the
| intentions of 112.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| I think it's worth pointing out that 112 (and other common
| rejections like 101) may have more public writing about
| them than almost any other part of the law since every
| patent rejection is public record, but it's still pretty
| subjective at the examination stage.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| That's what a patent is though. Protection for the idea, not
| the implementation.
|
| You can disagree that software concepts can be patented (I tend
| towards this view), but you can't have a patent that only
| protects a particular implementation. That would be copyright.
| rafark wrote:
| " That's what a patent is though. Protection for the idea,
| not the implementation." So in theory an evil corporation
| could patent popular design patterns? Can a company patent
| the decorator pattern?
| naasking wrote:
| > That's what a patent is though. Protection for the idea,
| not the implementation.
|
| No, you can't patent "drug that alleviates headaches", you
| can only patent a specific formulation, and a competitor is
| still free to create any other formulation that achieves the
| same result.
| freejazz wrote:
| But you can patent your formulation in a way that will
| encompass many other formulations that might be distinct
| from your preferred implementing formulation... this is a
| basic tenet of patent law.
| nunuvit wrote:
| You're mincing words. Think of the idea as being the
| formulation and you'll find agreement between the statement
| and your example.
|
| Edit: That is to say, I think you agree in principle, and
| you're finding points of disagreement in the wording that
| were not intended.
| [deleted]
| conanite wrote:
| Do you mean that if I had invented a "machine for
| airborne transportation", such as, say, a hot-air
| balloon, I could collect royalties on jet airplanes?
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| If your claims were sufficiently written and not obvious
| in light of the prior art, yes. In this case, your claims
| would have to contend with literally millennia of prior
| art up to the story of Icarus, and including the drawings
| of Leonardo Da Vinci.
|
| This kind of super-broad patent enforcement happened with
| 3D printing, and is still happening with e-ink
| technology. In both cases, the patents didn't have
| centuries of prior art covering what would otherwise have
| been entire industries, and could protect their
| monopolies for 20 years.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > You're mincing words
|
| "mincing words" is a good description of law in general.
| That's no criticism at all.
| [deleted]
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Patents are supposed to cover non-obvious invented ideas -
| "drug that alleviates [condition]" doesn't sound like it
| can be invented, since drugs are commonly used to treat
| conditions, so there's no new invention here. The ideas you
| can patent are the use of a molecule for a purpose and the
| method of producing it. That's already pretty broad.
| naasking wrote:
| > "drug that alleviates [condition]" doesn't sound like
| it can be invented, since drugs are commonly used to
| treat conditions, so there's no new invention here
|
| It's been attempted. They invent and patent X as a
| "method to do Y", and then try to sue others who do Y via
| some means other than X.
|
| My point was that the original description of patents was
| not precise enough and implied that you could patent Y
| rather than X.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| I have never heard of people using method patents to sue
| over methods other than things similar to methods in the
| claims. Usually, the claims are as general as you can get
| away with, and cover a lot more than just the actual "X"
| that they are introducing to the market. When someone
| does something similar to "X" without reading the patent,
| they can easily be walking in one of the claim sets that
| has been patented in the "method to do Y" patent. Most
| people who want to copy something do it in a fairly
| unoriginal way.
|
| Still, patent claims are never as broad as "drug to
| alleviate headaches" or anything similar.
| buran77 wrote:
| Wouldn't I be able to patent the idea of landing a rocket
| using a reverse launch process and stabilization fins and
| jets, even if I'm not even capable of landing a stone? If the
| implementation doesn't matter than I just locked everyone
| else out of landing rockets for decades.
|
| The idea is worth something but so is the implementation
| because ideas are generic and the more specific you make
| them, the more you actually define an implementation, in the
| physical world at least.
| abhibeckert wrote:
| Your patent has to fully describe how the invention works.
| And if it doesn't work at all, then who cares if you own a
| patent for it, it's a useless invention anyway.
|
| If your rocket _does_ work, then yes being able to lock
| everyone else out of it for decades is the entire point.
|
| But once those decades are over, anyone else can copy your
| idea, which has been documented for all of eternity.
| There's an almost endless list of inventions before patents
| that were never made public, and nobody knows how they
| worked.
|
| Unfortunately, that's the idea for how patents are supposed
| to work. In the real world what we have is patent trolls.
| buran77 wrote:
| > Your patent has to fully describe how the invention
| works.
|
| Exactly, a patent can't be just for "an idea" which is
| intrinsically generic but rather for the actual
| implementation with details. Patenting ideas would
| probably be the very definition of an overly broad
| patent.
| freejazz wrote:
| It doesn't have to be the exact implementation though. It
| can be many implementations that your invention
| enables...
| AlbertCory wrote:
| You don't patent an _idea_ , you patent an *invention." You
| must commit it to practice: ARP vs. CRP.
| 1jbdg wrote:
| Based on the idea only you'd struggle to describe that in
| sufficient detail that a relevant expert could use the
| invention...
| bdowling wrote:
| > even if I'm not even capable of landing a stone?
|
| No, because the disclosure has to enable a person of
| ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of the
| invention. This is called the "enablement" requirement.
| matsemann wrote:
| > _That 's what a patent is though. Protection for the idea,
| not the implementation._
|
| Is it, though? Like the lightbulb patent was for the specific
| way of making a lightbulb, not on "something that makes light
| from electricity".
| bdowling wrote:
| There are often separate patents for things and methods of
| manufacture of those things.
|
| In any case, a patent will be drafted to try to cover as
| many possible implementations of the thing or method.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| Yes, that's true, I wasn't very clear. It's a method that
| is patented, but not a specific implementation of the
| method.
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| >In Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court found that
| Congress intended patentable subject matter to "include
| anything under the sun that is made by man." ... However,
| the Court also stated that this broad definition has limits
| and does not embrace every discovery. According to the
| Court, the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract
| ideas are not patentable.
|
| >"something that makes light from electricity"
|
| So yeah probably too abstract to be patentable. However
| something like "something that makes light from electricity
| by passing it through a filament" might be enough to make
| it not abstract.
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/patent
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Law is about word-smithing, so apologies for this:
|
| You patent an invention, not an idea. Section 112 says you
| have to identify the Best Mode of making your invention.
| Patents are also careful to say "in one embodiment, the
| invention..."
|
| > you can't have a patent that only protects a particular
| implementation. That would be copyright.
|
| Yes, you can. Claims are drafted to _not_ be limiting, but it
| can happen.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| Thanks, my original explanation was not very good, IANAL.
|
| I was getting at you don't patent the code itself (which
| has copyright protection).
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > That's what a patent is though. Protection for the idea,
| not the implementation
|
| No, that's not true. A patent is on an _invention_ , not an
| idea.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| HN'ers: Thanks! What a difference a title makes.
|
| Last week's article _was_ more of an anti-software-patent screed,
| and ended with a vague statement about copyright. I got some
| feedback and realized the copyright part looked thrown in (which
| it was), and I took it out.
|
| That doesn't mean that copyright isn't well worth discussing, but
| I haven't spent as much time on that part of the law. This week's
| article is more focused on a specific issue, which _would_ make a
| huge difference in the patent landscape.
|
| AMA.
| vivegi wrote:
| Not every jurisdiction allows computer programs or algorithms to
| be patented.
|
| Having said that, a jurisdiction such as the US that allows
| software to be patented, already doesn't require source code as
| part of the patent application/regsitration/grant process.
|
| Good luck trying to invalidate every active software patent
| existing as on date with this clause. Ain't gonna happen!
| gabereiser wrote:
| >Lawyers and politicians don't want to solve a problem; they want
| to make a living from it. Lawyers want to add it to their
| practice areas, and politicians want to raise campaign funds from
| it. Solving it would defeat the purpose.
|
| Ugh, this is so true. We (US) stopped trying to solve problems
| after we created one of the biggest problems with the war on
| drugs. That was the last time we tried to solve anything.
| Everything else has been the quote. A debate to raise funds or
| add "expertise" feather in the cap so they can charge $500/hr to
| discuss it.
| gabereiser wrote:
| For those outside the US. America went to war on people of
| color in the late 70s until 2014. It's still the primary police
| handbook training guide for dealing with people of color.
| People of color is a racist way of saying Not White. We
| targeted the very social and economic policies we created for
| the poor and disenfranchised and then had the gall to be
| offended when they resorted to exactly what we created. This
| racism against black humans has been raging since 1776 in this
| country. With no signs of stopping. We would arrest people of
| color for drugs we put on the market and gave them ridiculous
| prison sentences where the white guy would walk with a fine,
| black people would get 10 years. Anyway, rant over, it's fucked
| up.
|
| _EDIT_ : Down voted to suppress the truth.
| detuur wrote:
| Software patents have never contributed anything to society.
| Software is materially antithetical to patents. You can only ever
| clearly observe the output of software, and in many cases it's
| either hard or impossible to investigate the actual method (i.e.
| the patentable part).
|
| Regular patents work because they are easily** enforceable. If
| your competitor brings a rip-off of your machine on the market,
| you can buy one, take it apart, see the similarities with your
| own eyes, and have a case. If Meta rips off your method to apply
| an image filter, you better have 10 years of experience in
| reverse-engineering obfuscated code. Actually, don't even bother.
| The code runs on their servers and you will never have the
| opportunity to even investigate it.
|
| The upside to all of this is that a fun, creative interpretation
| of this exists. Which is that if you really want software
| patents, obfuscation and DRM should be forbidden so that patent
| claims can be investigated.
|
| **: Yeah I know that's no longer true in many cases.
| mughinn wrote:
| >Patents have never contributed anything to society.
|
| I think I fixed that for you. Patents have only caused
| Corporations to battle each other and bully normal people into
| compliance
| goodoldneon wrote:
| If I'm a pharmaceutical company, why would I spend a billion
| dollars researching a drug if someone can copy it?
| codegeek wrote:
| Imagine if Jonas Salk said the same thing.
| mughinn wrote:
| AFAIK, most empirical studies don't show any benefit of
| patents for innovation
|
| I'm not sure specifically about pharmaceutical companies,
| though. They may be an exception.
| airstrike wrote:
| I'd love to see who they picked for the control group
| fooker wrote:
| Necessity is the mother of invention.
|
| Your company maybe won't spend a billion dollars on this
| research.
|
| Maybe some govt funded research will work out, maybe a
| dozen other people will run into the discovery at some
| point.
|
| A large majority of inventions by humans haven't been
| motivated by profit.
| hatefulmoron wrote:
| > A large majority of inventions by humans haven't been
| motivated by profit.
|
| Were the large majority of drugs we use today (the topic
| discussed) invented outside the profit motive? I don't
| know the answer to that.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| this paper is not about drugs. Those patents already do
| have to disclose their formulas.
| hatefulmoron wrote:
| I think you're pasting this here without regard for
| context.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| "Were the large majority of drugs we use today (the topic
| discussed) invented outside the profit motive? I don't
| know the answer to that."
|
| is the context.
| hatefulmoron wrote:
| Does your comment answer my question?
| nradov wrote:
| Drug discovery is the easy part. Many of the molecules
| come out of publicly funded academic research. The hard,
| expensive part is running the large-scale human trials
| necessary to demonstrate the level of safety and efficacy
| needed for FDA approval. There is no way to do that
| cheaply. That's why patents are needed as an economic
| incentive.
|
| In theory the government could nationalize the entire
| pharmaceutical industry but there is no evidence that
| bureaucrats are capable of reliably picking the right
| candidate drugs. Countries with weak IP protections do
| relatively little new drug development.
| dabraham1248 wrote:
| > but there is no evidence that bureaucrats are capable
| of reliably picking the right candidate drugs
|
| I'm not convinced that the govt bureaucrats would do a
| worse job than drug co bureaucrats. Current studies are
| poorly designed, implemented incorrectly, results are
| cherry-picked and gamed, p-hacking lives, ... This is an
| industry that can't even seem to accept pre-registration.
|
| Also, as you say, most of these molecules come from
| publicly funded research. Why would the group funding the
| first set of research (and producing more molecules than
| industry) automatically be bad at the second?
|
| In all, I'm not convinced that "Drug discovery is the
| easy part." If it was so easy, then why don't drug co's
| do it, and save the licensing fees?
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| > If it was so easy, then why don't drug co's do it, and
| save the licensing fees?
|
| Because licensing costs less and is risk-reduced?
| Eisenstein wrote:
| > Why would the group funding the first set of research
| (and producing more molecules than industry)
| automatically be bad at the second?
|
| People have different motivations and talents. Woz is a
| great computer engineer and Jobs was a great salesman.
| One without the other wouldn't have given us ubiquitous
| personal computers.
|
| Same thing applies to organizations.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| this paper is not about drugs. Those patents already do
| have to disclose their formulas.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > If I'm a pharmaceutical company
|
| you already had to disclose the chemical formula for your
| drug. This paper only applies to software.
| tzs wrote:
| > If Meta rips off your method to apply an image filter, you
| better have 10 years of experience in reverse-engineering
| obfuscated code. Actually, don't even bother. The code runs on
| their servers and you will never have the opportunity to even
| investigate it.
|
| That's not quite correct. _You_ won 't get to look at Meta's
| source code, but you will be able to have people you designate
| look at it for you.
|
| Here's what happens.
|
| 1. From what you can readily see of their product and from what
| they've said publicly about it (documentation, press releases,
| presentations at trade shows, etc) you suspect that they are
| using your patented thing.
|
| 2. You do some reverse engineering and/or experiments to get
| more evidence to support or refute that.
|
| 3. If you get enough evidence to convince a patent litigation
| firm that they could file an infringement lawsuit for you
| without running afoul of Rule 11(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
| Civil Procedure [1] have your patent litigation firm file such
| a lawsuit.
|
| 4. Your attorneys ask Meta's attorneys to provide a copy of
| Meta's source code. Meta does so. Typically they do so by
| turning it over to their attorneys and their attorneys set up a
| place in their offices where it can be viewed.
|
| 5. Your attorneys can go to that place and view the code. You
| can also hire outside experts to go look at the code and write
| reports to be presented as evidence at the trial.
|
| 6. Your attorneys can ask Meta to provide someone knowledgeable
| about the code to be deposed, where they can ask your attorneys
| and/or outside experts have about it.
|
| This will work both ways. Meta's attorneys and outside experts
| will get to see your source code too if it is relevant to their
| defense or counterclaims. For example they might ask for your
| source to your image filter using products that were released
| before you filed for your patent, in order to try to show that
| they also used your patented methods and you failed to file the
| patent early enough.
|
| BTW, patent trials are usually open to the public. It can be
| quite interesting because a lot of internal details from both
| plaintiff's and defendant's products can come out. I once
| spectated at a patent suit where Microsoft was a defendant,
| concerning some technology they used in Windows.
|
| Plaintiff was using information from Mark Russinovich's books
| and articles about Windows internals. Russinovich's books were
| basically the Bible for third parties that needed to know
| Windows internals. Microsoft had engineers who actually worked
| on those parts of Windows testify and they specifically
| described several errors in Russinovich's books.
|
| This was long after I'd worked on anything that needed to use
| undocumented Windows internals, but back when I'd worked for a
| company that made Windows system utilities and was spending
| half my time dealing with undocumented Windows internals the
| kind of information at that trial would have been a goldmine.
|
| [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11
| rafark wrote:
| I've always wondered. In cases like your Facebook example.
| What prevents Facebook from giving a different source code
| instead of the actual code? Like if they were using a
| patented code, they could in theory quickly write some new
| code and show that in court. Who's going to know?
| chii wrote:
| > Software patents have never contributed anything to society.
|
| this is very noticeable because the truly useful software
| algorithms don't get patented, they get protection via trade
| secrets instead (and enforce it via courts and various internal
| processes).
|
| I say abolish software patents. Software copyright is good
| enough.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > I say abolish software patents. Software copyright is good
| enough.
|
| But what if we do the opposite - abolish copyright abd keep
| patents?
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| > Software copyright is good enough.
|
| To play the devil's advocate: Is it though?
|
| Especially recently we've seen the widespread acceptance of
| copyright and license laundering through large machine
| learning systems such as copilot and chatgpt, backed by
| enough microsoft laywers to prevent meaningful push back from
| the copyright owners. They'll output verbatim copies of what
| was previously copyrighted code.
|
| If it is true that software copyright can be cleaned away in
| such a fashion, maybe patenting the algorithm itself actually
| is necessary to avoid big tech companies like microsoft from
| forcibly strip mining the ideas of independent creators.
| studentrob wrote:
| > To play the devil's advocate: Is it though?
|
| Yes. Copyright already protects what a patent granted for
| source code would protect.
|
| The problem you describe exists in both scenarios, and is
| resolved with enforcement. You can sneakily break the law,
| and you run the risk of getting caught for fraud.
| pron wrote:
| > Copyright already protects what a patent granted for
| source code would protect.
|
| I don't think that part is true:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| > Copyright already protects what a patent granted for
| source code would protect.
|
| This is not correct. Patent protects the abstract
| functional design, copyright protects the reduction to
| practice. Two implementations of the same algorithm have
| independent copyrights.
|
| You see the same thing in physical engineering too. A
| novel chemical process is protected by patent and each
| reduction to practice is protected by copyright. They are
| separately licensable.
| never_inline wrote:
| > maybe patenting the algorithm itself actually is
| necessary to avoid big tech companies like microsoft from
| forcibly strip mining the ideas of independent creators
|
| a. Independent discovery of same algorithm is very likely
| before 17 years.
|
| b. Big companies abuse such systems by patenting trivial
| ideas.
| archontes wrote:
| The thing is that it probably isn't. The thing you call
| "laundering" is probably actually fine. The thing that
| people misunderstand is that copyright is written such that
| it _never_ protects function. If your code is open source,
| then I can write code that does the same thing, and if I
| can 't because your code perfectly encapsulates the
| function, it's inseparable from that function and thus _isn
| 't eligible for copyright protection at all_.
|
| https://casetext.com/case/kern-river-gas-transmission-v-
| coas...
|
| Your comments and creative expression are the only portions
| of your code that are protected by copyright. The function
| isn't.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| These models will output verbatim copies of copyrighted
| code though, comments and all.
| archontes wrote:
| I understand that. And with the comments it's almost
| certainly infringing.
|
| If you strip the comments out, though, it's questionable.
| grumbel wrote:
| > copyright and license laundering
|
| The nice thing is that this works in both directions. Just
| as Microsoft and Co. can train on people's data, nothing
| stops the people from training on Microsoft's chatbot
| output.
|
| As long as we don't get any lawsuits derailing this
| practice, we actually might end up fine, as there is
| nothing that'll allow anybody to get ahead in AI without
| automatically provide a mountain of training data for the
| competition.
|
| If that means the end of copyright right as we know it, I
| am all for it.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Microsoft &co doesn't (to my knowledge) train their LLMs
| on their internal source code.
| tough wrote:
| Windows has several codebases leaked no? Let's train a
| windows XP source code model for teh lulz
| gpderetta wrote:
| inbefore corps push for AI personhood to make them sign
| NDAs
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I honestly don't think Microsoft puts much that value in
| source code that's from around the time Brendan Fraser
| was doing Mummy movies.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| "Copyright and license laundering". That's a catchy phrase
| that explains a lot of what is going on in AI world.
|
| Thanks!
| chefandy wrote:
| Unsurprisingly, the "creators getting ripped off is a
| small price to pay for progress" stance is less popular
| here than when HN discusses AI-generated art.
| chii wrote:
| > forcibly strip mining the ideas of independent creators.
|
| this is the same argument that patent proponents had,
| because patents protects the little guy.
|
| And yet, most copyright enforcement occurs via large
| corporations who have an interest in doing so to further
| some other goal as part of a strategy to gain monopoly.
| Patents as well as copyright is but a tool, and any tool
| can be more powerfully wielded if the wielder is more
| powerful!
|
| The little guy is better off without copyright imho (but
| that horse has already bolted).
| nhumrich wrote:
| Patents protect the little guy from the manufacturers. A
| patent is supposed to secure the effort of R&D without
| necessarily having the budget for massive manufacturing.
| It prevents the manufacturer from taking off with your
| idea and giving you nothing for it. It seperates the
| manufacturing cost and r&d cost. In software, there is 0
| manufacturing, it is entirely R&D. As soon as you have
| developed your product, its ready. Hence why patents feel
| so useless in software. Also why software startups are so
| attractive to investors.
| Bran_son wrote:
| > Patents protect the little guy from the manufacturers.
|
| As long as the little guy's patent can improve the
| process without stepping on any of the countless pre-
| existing patents manufacturers have accumulated. Now how
| often is that the case?
| lazide wrote:
| _any_ mechanism will be used by someone to protect and
| entrench themselves. Small or large.
|
| The more difficult and expensive it is to use, the more
| it will be the domain of those with more resources, and
| the more the small will be defenseless.
|
| The answer is not to eliminate copyright or patents, but
| rather to make them simple and easy to apply for, defend,
| and find. The current bar is so high it favors the big
| guys only, and gives them leverage against smaller folks
| who can't afford to even show up to defend themselves
| usually.
|
| Or eliminate it entirely, but you'll not be able to do
| that because Disney, Microsoft, Oracle, and the like
| would murder/compromise/destroy anyone who might be able
| to do that.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| By the way, it is much easier to enforce a patent as a
| "little guy" than a copyright. Because patents entitle
| you to huge damages and are harder to evade, many layers
| will take complex patent cases on contingency (as long as
| you have a solid read on the claims) and there is a lot
| of financing available otherwise. On copyright
| enforcement, you're pretty much stuck.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Until very recently the little guy could effectively use
| a poisonous license like GPL to dissuade exactly this
| sort of thing.
|
| The system of copyright worked very well to protect
| smaller entities in this regard.
| chii wrote:
| How well has copyright really worked for the little guy?
| Even when there are wins in the GPL violation suits, the
| payout barely covers the cost of litigation (i'm imputing
| the cost even if it is pro bono).
|
| Not to mention tivoization which trivially bypasses
| GPLv2.
| philderbeast wrote:
| except it didn't in practice because the little guy has
| no ability to enforce even these poisonous licences.
|
| in reality your licence is only as strong as your ability
| to enforce it.
| jimmySixDOF wrote:
| For those interested you still have a few days to register
| and hear petitions from Microsoft, A16Z, and Internet
| Archive on the topic:
|
| Copyright and Artificial Intelligence April 19, 2023 -
| Literary Works, Including Software Listening Session
|
| copyright.gov/ai/
| duped wrote:
| These are not necessarily good examples, but most multimedia
| encoding is patented and widely used. Companies like
| Fraunhofer only exist to create these algorithms and make
| money licensing their patents.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Only for things that can reasonably kept secret. For example
| lots of good video or audio codecs are patented instead of
| being kept secret.
| SamReidHughes wrote:
| Sure they contributed. They incited the development of better
| media compression formats.
| smallstepforman wrote:
| The binary executable is easily transformed into a 1:1 ratio
| assembly code. Assembly code is readable by humans, and the
| algorithm deducable. So the method is researchable to anyone
| wanting to investigate.
|
| Having said that, I despise all patents, including software
| patents. The head start a company has should be enough to
| capitalise on RnD.
| detuur wrote:
| I can turn a simple A* implementation into a behemoth of
| self-modifying, virtualised, encrypted code that will
| suddenly turn into Dijkstra as soon as you try to trace its
| behaviour.
|
| The time that assembly code was readable by humans is long
| past, and I can't afford to pay NSA-level crackers who can
| reverse-engineer the 60MB of executable code in the Facebook
| app because I have a hunch that they're violating the image
| processing patent I have.
| nazgulsenpai wrote:
| Except when the binary executable lives on a server somewhere
| inaccessible, a locked-down device, behind protection
| mechanisms like VMProtect which actively thwart
| debugging/dumping, etc. Software patents apply to much more
| than "vanilla" fat binaries.
| SergeAx wrote:
| Software patents are working exactly right: if I think that my
| patent is infringed, I am going to the court, court checks for
| visual similarities and then subpoenas infringer's source code.
| beached_whale wrote:
| I think RSA was a good software patent, or even lzw. Both had
| significant impacts and where novel
| Jolter wrote:
| Sure but was society better off because those were patented
| as opposed to open (or secret)?
| beached_whale wrote:
| Yes, and look at the history leading up to this(secret
| algorithms with a trust me it works non-guarantee). The cat
| was out of the bag on pki and there was no putting it back.
| People built on that knowledge and developed new techniques
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Yes, because there's a reasonable chance they would not
| have been invented (or they would have taken much longer to
| appear) without the economic upside of a patent. Also, a
| patent trades forced disclosure for a limited monopoly. The
| disclosure in both of these cases has been very good.
| edflsafoiewq wrote:
| Very dubious, given that both have since been superseded
| by better patent-free alternatives.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Which are all built on top of the public disclosure of
| these algorithms, which was required by... the patents!
|
| Prior to RSA being patented, a lot of encryption was
| proprietary (and probably mostly broken), and nobody
| could build on top of it. Post-patent, the RSA inventors
| could publish details and publicize their invention,
| which led to the alternatives.
| beached_whale wrote:
| Also, people immediately licensed the patents and it
| further research in the field that was owned by entities
| like the NSA prior
| varispeed wrote:
| Regular patents also have really low bar.
|
| I think this is because you have experience with software, so
| you see pretty much all software patents should have never been
| granted, but same goes for things like hardware.
|
| I would partially blame the VC culture for this, when they
| state as a requirement for funding that product needs to be
| patented. So engineers try to patent whatever they can and as
| it seems these patents don't go through any scrutiny and are
| approved as they go.
| tptacek wrote:
| A source code requirement would not meaningfully impede software
| patenting. The teeth of a patent are its claims, not its
| enablement. The premise of this post seems to be that a patenting
| entity would be required to disclose its actual commercial source
| code, but of course, were source code required, even given the
| best mode requirement, it would still be horseshit source code.
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _even given the best mode requirement_
|
| The best-mode requirement was pretty much neutered as part of
| the America Invents Act, because:
|
| 1. USPTO patent examiners normally don't inquire about best
| mode unless there's a pretty-obvious failure; and
|
| 2. in litigation about an _issued_ patent, "failure to
| disclose the best mode shall not be a basis on which any claim
| of a patent may be canceled or held invalid or otherwise
| unenforceable ...." (35 U.S.C. SS 282(b)(3)(A), at https://www.
| uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l....)
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| While the authors post seems to try to critique a US legal issue,
| the auto-generated ambiguous nonsense content is kind of
| disrespectful to readers.
|
| Having gone though the Patent process several times, I have
| observed the following:
|
| 1. The company president was primarily focused on locking down
| the business IP anyway possible. This also bumped the valuation
| by around $300k each time.
|
| 2. People will clone low-hanging fruit, and simply ignore patent
| trolls in places Software Patents aren't valid. Note, going after
| users for dimes is a bad business model.
|
| 3. The author/programmer usually solves some key feature for a
| business use-case, and submits the draft to an IP legal firm.
| First-to-file patent systems essentially get flooded with
| business-intelligence cloners, and novelty can become rather
| illusive.
|
| 4. The lawyers and business owners try to strip any sensitive
| information, create the most generalized abstract interpretation
| of the IP, and convert English into obfuscated legalese. People
| want to capture a market, sue savvy cloners, and seize
| competitors inventory which _may_ violate IP.
|
| 5. The entire Patent is basically just describing the context of
| how the claims section is to be interpreted, and how the IP is
| related to other IP class areas. Note, generally this also means
| only the claims section itself at the end of the Patent is
| actually enforceable.
|
| 6. In a global economy, the cost to enforce IP is beyond the
| reach of most startup budgets. Thus, overly aggressive business
| owners tend to go bankrupt trying to imitate a large firms
| policies, and discover most funding channels will give a hard
| "No" to chasing Patent rights.
|
| 7. The best plans don't require secrecy, offer economic
| incentives encouraging competitor cooperation, and punish cloners
| in a tit-for-tat model.
|
| 8. While technically it was only a few thousand dollars to
| challenge pending Patents, as far as I can tell it is a very rare
| occurrence due to the volume of works.
|
| Personally, I think once source-code is published it should fall
| under copyright , and invalidate current/future associated
| Patents. =)
| jacquesm wrote:
| > the auto-generated ambiguous nonsense content
|
| What do you mean with this?
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I think he means the Dall-E images. Which do give a visual
| illustration of some otherwise-dry concepts.
|
| Some people think anything humorous is disrespectful.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCDIgoSlNXg
| jacquesm wrote:
| Ah, I thought he meant the text. I didn't even see those
| images.
| indymike wrote:
| How about we just stop the madness on software patents, period?
| hghid wrote:
| Nice idea, but at some point GPT + "generate code to implement
| this patent", may develop plausible enough code to satisfy most
| Patent Examiners. I don't see this fixing the issue in the longer
| term - maybe a "use it or lost it" rule + much shorter
| enforcement period for software patents is what is needed?
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I guess you haven't read many patent claims.
| raphlinus wrote:
| It's pretty easy to predict what would happen in practice if this
| policy proposal were adopted.
|
| An entire category of bullshit jobs would be created to write
| "source code" that met the regulatory requirements but had little
| connection to the actual code deployed in production. This code
| would largely be derived from the claims, and, like much patent
| language, be crafted to be as vague and general as possible. Most
| of this work could be automated by ChatGPT, as no insight is
| required. Another class of bullshit jobs would be created to
| interpret and analyze the code, as it's outside the skill set of
| lawyers and examiners.
|
| Any code published as part of a patent would immediately be anti-
| open source, as people actually creating things would be strongly
| discouraged from even looking at it, as doing so would support
| "willful infringement." The average level of code quality would
| be such that nobody would want to, anyway.
|
| There's lots that could be done to make the patent system more
| beneficial to society (including, in my personal opinion,
| dropping software patents entirely), but I don't think a code
| requirement would be particularly helpful.
| nerpderp82 wrote:
| You are wrong on this.
|
| A patent makes claims, patents should be shown to work, code is
| a proof of that. They are computational existence proofs. We
| should hold our systems to higher standards of rigor.
|
| You are shooting something down for how it could possibly be
| subverted, rather than do that, how about we think of ways that
| it could be made less corruptible? Is this not a pro-fatalistic
| stance?
|
| Not only should the patent require the code, the _product_
| should require the code to be held in escrow. And for safety
| critical systems, the formal checked models should be presented
| in a way the proves that the bits on the system were generated
| from the formally checked code.
|
| Would it fix all problems? Hell no! Would it prevent some
| entities from innovating in the market, hell yes!
|
| As it currently stands, you don't even have to have a working
| system. Corporations are effectively _patenting problems_ , not
| solutions. Patents themselves are a worthless way of
| transferring knowledge, this is what needs to change.
| freejazz wrote:
| Why is it that software patents should have a higher standard
| than any other type of patent?
| cornstalks wrote:
| IMO they shouldn't. Personally I'd like for patenting a new
| physical invention to require a physical object to
| accompany it that embodies what is being patented.
| freejazz wrote:
| But that's never been the case, why should it be now? If
| you forced every inventor to have to make their
| invention, it'd be a pro-industry burden that diminished
| the capacities of any smaller organizations or inventors.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| In fact, in some cases, you DO have to provide a working
| copy; admittedly now that's when your patent seems
| impossible (like perpetual motion). Also, for plant
| patents (that's something only there so they can put it
| on the Patent Bar exam /s), I believe you have to provide
| a plant.
|
| "make their invention" _is_ the law; it 's the RP in ARP
| and CRP. You can't claim a new antibiotic without giving
| the formula. 112 rejections are common in patent
| prosecution.
| cornstalks wrote:
| > _But that 's never been the case, why should it be
| now?_
|
| For the same reasons TFA is making the argument "No
| Source Code == No Patent."
|
| > _If you forced every inventor to have to make their
| invention, it 'd be a pro-industry burden that diminished
| the capacities of any smaller organizations or
| inventors._
|
| If an inventor never made their invention, are they an
| inventor? IMO no, they're just an "idea guy" at that
| point.
| nerpderp82 wrote:
| You don't even have to be an "idea guy", many patents are
| patenting _the problem domain_.
| raphlinus wrote:
| I may be wrong, and overall I'm very sympathetic to changing
| the patent system to incentivize actually making things. That
| said, I think changes to policy _must_ be interpreted in an
| adversarial context, assuming that people will game the
| system as much as possible. With this policy, patent filers
| will clearly be incentivized to give away as little of the
| store as possible. Also, determining whether the code
| _really_ works, and _really_ represents the system being
| protected, is just as difficult a problem (if not more so)
| than interpreting claims today.
| nerpderp82 wrote:
| I don't disagree, we should always have a critical stance
| and understand how the systems we build can and will be
| subverted against the intended design.
|
| But that isn't a reason to not build them, and in this
| case, the effort is to repair an already broken system that
| has been subverted. If creatively deconstructing it isn't
| an option, we have to add more "features" and this case the
| added constraint of functioning code.
|
| We can disagree all day what functioning code means, but
| the goal is worthy and should be explored.
|
| How we apply policy that meets the intended goals and isn't
| gamed is _the_ problem for law makers. Good thing we have
| _spirit_ as a backstop and not just letter. A certain hedge
| fund and a billion dollars in AI and civilization could
| collapse.
|
| Right now, the inmates are running the patent system, if we
| value everyone's ability to participate in innovation, we
| need a way to reduce BS patents and make them intrinsically
| more valuable as a form of knowledge transfer.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Maybe. Or, maybe such CodeGPT would become subject to obvious
| "does it actually work?" tests. Joe Average in the jury box
| might feel pretty confident saying "a Patent for an apple-
| peeler ain't valid if the so-called peeler completely fails to
| peel apples". Similar for software that fails to run, or to do
| anything resembling the claims.
| nmz wrote:
| At that rate, is the codegpt output any different than
| outputting from /dev/urandom?
| gumballindie wrote:
| Why do we even bother? Ai will cause mass unemployment among
| software engineers, some of whom have built the free software
| that ai companies now monetise, and none of this will matter.
| pabs3 wrote:
| I would also say No Source Code == No Copyright, we should
| require companies escrow their software source code so that when
| their software becomes abandonware, users can continue
| development of it.
|
| This would also get closer to a right to repair software.
| freejazz wrote:
| That's already the case with copyright, which is distinct from
| patent.
| fluoridation wrote:
| You can, in fact, copyright closed source software.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Add on that No Tooling == No Copyright. Source code is one
| thing, but particularly for large projects or ones ...
| creatively abusing compiler features depending on a specific
| version, you're straight fucked without the build environment
| used.
|
| And that's not all... there is one elephant left in the room:
| code signing keys. Like, what is it worth when you have the
| source code and the build environment, but the computer running
| it is locked down hard by an actually capable TEE? For now, a
| lot of these can be bypassed by the arcane art of power
| glitching, but that won't be the case forever - and some
| console makers, like Microsoft or Sony prior to removing Linux
| from the PS3, took away the incentive many elite hackers had to
| make homebrew possible so it's a good question if there will
| ever be an Xbox Series X modchip.
| pabs3 wrote:
| Agreed. That is a big part of why copyleft licenses like the
| GPL ensure users get the right to read, reuse, rebuild,
| reinstall software.
|
| https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-
| and-t... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-
| gplv2/
| loonginthetooth wrote:
| This article reads like the author is a grade-a dickhead.
| bdowling wrote:
| He's also an uninformed dickhead. Here is where I stopped
| reading:
|
| > I'm not a lawyer but I can translate for you.
|
| The rest of it describes what he _thinks_ patents _should be_ ,
| not what they actually are.
| [deleted]
| xipix wrote:
| Something not mentioned here is that software itself is rarely
| the subject of a patent. Instead, it is a "computer system
| running software". This, I think, is a trick to get around
| software itself not being patentable in some jurisdictions.
|
| I really like this proposal but it lays bare the fact that the
| invention lies entirely within the software itself. When the
| patent industry has been pretending for years that the
| "invention" is a hardware thing that could, optionally, use
| software.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| right, and next week's article is going to be about that (sort
| of).
|
| The Facebook patent whose diagram I showed was all filed after
| the _Alice_ decision that was supposed to clear out bad
| software patents.
| bdowling wrote:
| We sometimes call them "software-implemented inventions."
| parentheses wrote:
| Thinking purely using a non legal mind trying to grasp legal
| concepts:
|
| If source code is akin to a machine whose inner workings can be
| patented, then data is akin to a physical object. A physical
| object could be a machine or it could be a creation made by a
| machine or both. Data is similar - it can be made by software or
| it could be software or both.
|
| Is this the right way to think about how the legal system views
| software and data?
|
| PS I'm in the US but interested to hear how this may vary from
| one country to another.
| kloch wrote:
| Working (!) source code should absolutely be required BUT there
| should also be a requirement that it not be unnecessarily
| complicated or obfuscated. Otherwise malicious compliance would
| be common.
| mindvirus wrote:
| I feel like that could sort itself out. With overly complicated
| or obfuscated code, it would hopefully be hard to prove
| infringement.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| You don't infringe the source code, you infringe the _claims_
| (as has always been the case).
|
| The source code provides the Written Description and
| Enablement requirements.
| kgc wrote:
| Maybe just submit the executable. That would protect the code and
| also prove the existence of it.
| BartjeD wrote:
| I enjoyed reading it, but I have a few comments from a (non US)
| legal perspective. I also shared these in the substack. I put
| them here for discussion.
|
| A) One import aspect not hightlighted about the patent system is
| that it's _intended_ to only verify the authenticity of a patent
| (substantially) if a conflict arises when the holder tries to
| enforce it. The checks to register a patent are comparatively
| minimal and formal.
|
| B) If companies file an ARP sample dated to the time they filed
| the patent they have already proven that they 'built' the
| software idea which the patent covers. The point of the patent is
| then to describe the application is sufficient detail that it may
| be enforced.
|
| If it is challenged the patent holder will have to prove his ARP
| meets the requirements of the patent. If it's too basic or the
| patent is too broad, the patent may well be invalidated.
|
| C) I am curious why there is so much emphasis on CRP patents. Are
| most software patents are CRP patents?
| AlbertCory wrote:
| virtually all software patents are CRP. You almost never see
| source code, as I said in the article.
| djmips wrote:
| But who reviews the source code? Could you submit broken code?
| Code hastily written by ChatGPT?
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > This is exactly what the PTO examiner would do. Believe it or
| not, many of the examiners in software have Computer Science
| backgrounds and are perfectly capable of this. It is not black
| magic anymore.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-17 23:01 UTC)