Log in

Or connect using:

darius: ordinary junk

Darius Bacon (darius) wrote,
@ 2001-03-25 12:00:00
ARRAY(0x2afde3721890)
ordinary junk
For Christmas a couple years ago I got my parents a laser pointer, wrapped in a printout of the U.S. patent on a ``method of exercising a cat''. This patent claimed a number of inventions related to wiggling a dot on the floor for a cat to chase around, all in lawyerly language with numbered drawings.

I'm listed as coauthor on a patent application that isn't much better, imho -- and worse in that it was meant seriously. I considered quitting my job rather than sign it, but fell for all the usual excuses: they'd just go ahead without me, and sure it's kind of bogus but they need it to defend against other bogus patents, and, hm, it'd be kind of neat to have any patent at all. It'd even me up with my online ex, for one thing. (She'd also thought her idea was just ``ordinary junk'' until her employer decided to ennoble it.)

So I'm not in a great position to complain about this recent patent from Sun. I won't explain here why it's an especially awful one, but since it is, I'm especially happy to be able to invalidate it: there's prior art in section I.2 of Henry Massalin's ``Superoptimizer: a look at the smallest program'' in ASPLOS II (1987), page 125. I'm not impressed with Sun: the prior-art search consisted of a couple minutes looking for a well-known paper among printouts on my bedroom floor.

This passage has me particularly steamed:
While embodiments and applications of this invention have been shown and described, it would be apparent to those skilled in the art that many more modifications than mentioned above are possible without departing from the inventive concepts herein. The invention, therefore, is not to be restricted except in the spirit of the appended claims.
Which all sounds nice and professional until you notice that the `inventive concept' is just three lines of assembly code, and the ordinary skill they're coopting to fence in their property is the sort that should have made it unclaimable.

There's a twist: the original discovery was made by Massalin's computer, not Massalin himself -- he'd written a program to search for clever solutions to programming problems. So, if one of its findings could get patented, why not start a company, buy some serious computing power (Massalin did his work with a 68020 back in the 80s), and crank out more of the same? Well, that's what John Koza is doing -- which I used to think was cool. Now I wonder if it isn't yet another bug in the patent system: anything a computer can just barely discover today, its successor of the next year or two could discover routinely -- but patents extend way longer than that.

Something else interesting: what got pages of description in a patent merited just one short paragraph in an appendix to an academic paper.



(3 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Dad's birthday
(Anonymous)
2001-03-30 05:33 pm UTC (link)
Sorry that I don't have your e-mail address. Wanted to remind you that today is you Dad's birthday!

Love, Ann

(Reply)

Re: Darius Bacon on patent assigned to 3 lines of asm
(Anonymous)
2006-12-29 09:32 pm UTC (link)
Not that I typically respond to five-year-old postings, but this one deserved commentary because (a) I just discovered it (!) and (b) I get steamed over the patent process, too. Right off the bat, please recognize that Uncle Sam always was, always is, and always will be absolutely, utterly incompetent. He rewards mediocrity, discourages innovation, and punishes success. Now for the practical ramification thereof that is of interest to the current discussion: the patent process is a fiasco. A few years back, my buddy, David Goodman, patented amplitude modulation. No kidding! He "invented" a device - the "Internet aggregator," he called it - that "brilliantly" enabled one to multiplex both an IP session and pre-VOIP telephony over the same physical household copper wiring. Why was it brilliant? Because it took advantage of thitherto-unused bandwidth, viz., by multiplying one of the signals by a "pilot" sinusoid that would shift it up (sum and difference frequencies, y'know) into the appropriate range (we call that "block conversion"). At the far end, further mixing and low-pass filtering recovers the block-converted satellite and restores it to baseband. This is what Heinrich Hertz (I believe he was the inventor, but I'm not 100% certain) did with amplitude modulation in 1896. But, lo and behold, Dave got a patent because of "lack of prior art." I guess the hypertalented patent examiners were unaware of any extant literature on, oh, such utter novelties as analog communication systems . . .

(Reply)

Re: Darius Bacon on patent assigned to 3 lines of asm
(Anonymous)
2006-12-29 09:33 pm UTC (link)
Not that I typically respond to five-year-old postings, but this one deserved commentary because (a) I just discovered it (!) and (b) I get steamed over the patent process, too. Right off the bat, please recognize that Uncle Sam always was, always is, and always will be absolutely, utterly incompetent. He rewards mediocrity, discourages innovation, and punishes success. Now for the practical ramification thereof that is of interest to the current discussion: the patent process is a fiasco. A few years back, my buddy, David Goodman, patented amplitude modulation. No kidding! He "invented" a device - the "Internet aggregator," he called it - that "brilliantly" enabled one to multiplex both an IP session and pre-VOIP telephony over the same physical household copper wiring. Why was it brilliant? Because it took advantage of thitherto-unused bandwidth, viz., by multiplying one of the signals by a "pilot" sinusoid that would shift it up (sum and difference frequencies, y'know) into the appropriate range (we call that "block conversion"). At the far end, further mixing and low-pass filtering recovers the block-converted satellite and restores it to baseband. This is what Heinrich Hertz (I believe he was the inventor, but I'm not 100% certain) did with amplitude modulation in 1896. But, lo and behold, Dave got a patent because of "lack of prior art." I guess the hypertalented patent examiners were unaware of any extant literature on, oh, such utter novelties as analog communication systems . . .

bdwilner@nsli.com 2006-12-29

(Reply)


(3 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Welcome to the new LiveJournal

Some changes have been made to LiveJournal, and we hope you enjoy them! As we continue to improve the site on a daily basis to make your experience here better and faster, we would greatly appreciate your feedback about these changes. Please let us know what we can do for you!

Send feedback

Switch back to old version

LiveJournal Feedback

See a bug? Let us know! Here you can also share your thoughts and ideas about updates to LiveJournal

Your request has been filed. You can track the progress of your request at:
If you have any other questions or comments, you can add them to that request at any time.

Send another report Close feedback form

If you're a LiveJournal user, you will be logged in after submitting your request.

(optional, if you're a LiveJournal user only)

(optional, if you're a LiveJournal user only)

(not shown to the public)

If you have a billing inquiry, please go here to submit your question.

Provide a link to the page where you are experiencing the error

Do not include any sensitive information, such as your password or phone number. No HTML allowed.

If you can't pass the human test, email your inquiry to: support@livejournal.com