| |
| ▲ | kube-system a day ago | parent [-] | | Right, software itself not patentable, only inventions. That is completely unrelated to the question as to whether software can violate a patent. If you write software that implements an invention that is patented, you have violated the patent. | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll a day ago | parent [-] | | The point is that software does not implement an invention. You're making a type error. No software does. It's like saying "a green tastes good." Green doesn't taste anything, and you can't have "a green." It's a color. When you write those words it's just a nonsense string. Software doesn't implement any patent just like 5 or pi don't implement any patent. It's a formal mathematical object. It also can't violate a patent because you can't patent mathematical objects, only inventions. An implementation of a patent may contain a computer that runs software. It's like saying a circuit diagram could infringe on a patent. No, only a circuit can. Software is the diagram. A thing running software can infringe, but software isn't the right type of thing to be able to infringe. You can print books full of detailed diagrams and instructions all day long. The patent is already supposed to describe the thing! It's not secret! A description of every last detail is not protected! This is also why you can prove things about software. You cannot prove things about inventions; only models of the inventions. You can actually prove statements about software itself because it is already part of formal mathematics. | | |
| ▲ | kube-system a day ago | parent [-] | | Again, you are conflating "what can be patented" with "what can infringe" If you make, use, produce, supply, induce someone to use anything that does a thing that is listed in a claim of a patent -- you have violated the patent. The argument that "software is just abstract math and so there's no way it can infringe" is bologna... like sovcit-level bologna. Any actual articulable piece of written software is not some abstract mathematical concept, it is the configuration for a machine. Courts simply do not treat software in the way you are asserting, they treat it like a component in a system. And whether or not you built the full system or you are contributing to or inducing someone else's system, doesn't matter much, it is merely the difference between direct and indirect infringement. If what you are asserting was true, it would be great for the software industry -- we wouldn't have to worry about patents anymore! | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll a day ago | parent [-] | | The Supreme Court of the US literally held that software is like a blueprint, or a detailed set of instructions. Because that's what it is: > Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment, and as such, it does not match §271(f)’s categorization: “components” amenable to “combination.” Windows abstracted from a tangible copy no doubt is information—a detailed set of instructions—and thus might be compared to a blueprint (or anything else containing design information). A blueprint may contain precise instructions for the construction and combination of the components of a patented device, but it is not itself a combinable component. Courts do actually understand that software is an abstract mathematical idea. And this is the only sane way to treat software. Otherwise you'd have e.g. Lean proofs as patentable subject matter. There is no line you can draw where you say "this is software, and that is a proof." Formal reasoning (e.g. through types) is all over real world, useful software. For what it's worth I've never actually encountered anyone who's even mentioned patents at work in the last decade. It's not a day-to-day concern that I've seen. | | |
| ▲ | kube-system a day ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, when it comes to determining the question of the country of origin for the particular way they were delivering the software -- which was what quote was about. Courts did find MS liable for infringing on AT&T's patent for Windows installed on computers in the US. And this wasn't discussed at all in that court case; it was never challenged up to SCOTUS because it was plainly a violation. | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll a day ago | parent [-] | | Computers running Windows with some functionality are not the same thing as Windows. That's literally the point the court made. Windows, the software, is abstract math, and cannot on its own infringe on anything. They very clearly laid out that Windows itself is a set of instructions. Hence they could ship the intangible software itself abroad and install it without infringing on US patent law. Merely creating the software did not infringe. | | |
| ▲ | kube-system a day ago | parent | next [-] | | That case only ruled on §271(f). Plenty of routine FOSS activities could qualify for other violations under that statute. The most likely is probably inducement -- have a README that tells someone how to install the software on a computer? You just induced them to put together the infringing system. In practical terms there is no point in entertaining the idea of software without any relation to a computer -- people are gonna' run software on a computer, that's what it's for. | | |
| ▲ | cannonpalms 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | (just a 3rd-party observer) This was quite an interesting thread. I appreciate you continuing to reply calmly. |
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
