That's insane, I implemented something similar 12 years ago, a massive hack-up involving Excel, MS Access and PHP.

If a clueless (in hindsight; I thought I was God's gift back then, a super VBA ninja) kid can "invent" something, then it's the textbook definition of "obvious".

EDIT: their patent predates this. if someone somewhere is unlucky enough to still be using my fantastic invention, now might be a good time to find an alternative..

This is the part of the software patent I've never understood. Surely if the standard of "non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art" was applied sensibly then most of the more absurd patents wouldn't be granted.

Of course there is the 'obvious in hindsight' problem but this test has been weakened beyond all recognition.

We don't even need to look to that subjective standard. We grant people exclusive rights or patents for sharing novel techniques with other people skilled in the art, yet I have never seen a professional software programmer look to patents for information or algorithms. It just doesn't happen.

So the tradeoff here is exclusive rights for zero public benefits. That is not the way it was intended.

I work on compilers, and while I don't read patents, I read papers which explain patented ideas. I think it is reasonable to assume that some of compiler-related papers from, say, IBM, wouldn't have been published and kept secret if IBM couldn't file patents before publishing papers.

So "programmers don't read patents" does not prove "zero public benefits", because I think it is more like "programmers do read materials which wouldn't have been published if they couldn't be patented".

Are some of those papers also defensive publications to prevent others from patenting the ideas?

You wouldn't necessarily read the actual patent, but it could happen that you read a conference paper, or attend the presentation, and then learn that the technique described in it is the subject of a patent application. The paper will still be a better source of information than the patent.

I don't know how often this happens, but I have seen it.

I used to work with software that used SIFT.

And I am sometimes a programmer.

Yeah, one would think that a widely infringed patent was a good signal that it was already obvious to those skilled in the art, but the patent bar seems to have this fantasy where people are reading patents and cackling gleefully stealing all the ideas from them. So they see it more as "massive business opportunity" than a signal that the system is not providing the alleged benefit to the public.

And to be honest, from those I've discussed it with, they are largely concerned with monetization and don't give a damn about any sort of public benefit.

This would be like trying to patent the letter 'A.' Sure, it was a great idea and sure, it's incredibly important.

But it's been a thing since way before you were born.

The best comparison to patenting shit like that which I have thought of is an author trying to patent "novel" grammatical constructs in English.

Even if it is genuinely novel (unlikely) and a non-obvious innovation (also unlikely), is that really something that we should consider patentable?

I suspect novel grammatical constructs in English would fail part one of the patent-eligibility test: does the idea fall within one of the four permissible classes, those being process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html. If it was deemed to fall within one of those categories, then it'd still have to qualify as either being non-abstract or, if abstract, having some further technical advance.

> does the idea fall within one of the four permissible classes, those being process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.

It would be a process in exactly the way that software is. Obviously the process can be carried out by a human (as can software), but never mind that, we'll just tack on a prior art typewriter or computer input device to make it a machine, right?

This whole mess is a result of the Federal Circuit reading everything too broadly. "Process" traditionally meant a manufacturing process or the like. If I'm not mistaken the only "software" patent the Supreme Court has found valid covered a manufacturing process.

And that's where software patents should live, if anywhere. Covering novel machines that happen to require some computation rather than novel computations that happen to be done by a machine.

The test such patents would fail is utility, which is mostly understood to be industrial, technical or commercial utility. This is the same reason recipes are generally not patentable -- they are, after all a "process of manufacturing something" -- except when they have "utility". A common example is a recipe for cattle feed that can reduce illnesses in cows, which clearly has utility in farming.

That test is unintelligible. Anything has industrial or commercial utility if you can find someone to buy it. A recipe for chicken soup clearly has such utility for Campbells because it's how they make their product. How is that supposed to be distinguished from someone making Playdough or artificial sweeteners, which presumably are patentable if novel and non-obvious?

You just mentioned examples that are very likely patentable. The difference is, you cannot try to patent a recipe if your only "utility" is "it helps my restaurant run better" or "it can help my book sell better". The test is fuzzy, sure, but it's an important grounds for rejection since any invention must be novel, non-obvious and useful. You could try to patent recipes and novel structures, but whether the PTO or the courts will buy your claim to usefulness is another matter.

> You just mentioned examples that are very likely patentable.

That's what I mean. How is the "recipe" for Playdough supposed to be different than a specific recipe for chicken noodle soup?

> The difference is, you cannot try to patent a recipe if your only "utility" is "it helps my restaurant run better" or "it can help my book sell better".

That's the utility of any commercial process. To make the product more desirable to customers. The utility the of process to make Playdough is that it helps you sell the product as compared with some other recipe that turns to stone on the retailer's shelf after a week.

I am not talking about the current state of patent law in the US. I am talking about the patentability of software in general. Not as the US implements it, but as it could ever be implemented, by anyone.

My, isn't that a novel idea.