So, I woke up the other day with a Eureka, and I tried to get it down as quickly as possible. I have most of it done, but I am stuck on the last part. Then I started to wonder if I can patent this algorithm that I had created.
But first, I did a google search and landed here
One comment said you cannot patent math, and another said that patenting an algorithm is evil.
Initially I didn't think any thing of the actual repercussions of such an idea (because people are good for taking things too far).
But now I have to take some time to consider what they might be:
Questions
1) So, if I were to patent an algorithm, do you think it would be unethical?
2) How much would an algorithm go for? I know it depends, but on what?
3) Do you think a machine that can use the algorithm to do something is more valuable than the algorithm itself?
4) If the source code of a game can be protected under copyright law, then doesn't it make sense that an algorithm can be protected under the same law( besides, what makes a game different from the next other than the way in which the game was coded, other than art assets)?
5) Do you think that perhaps the value a lot of games have are more so the processes used to make the games? Perhaps some algorithm used to solve a game problem could be used in the medical field to save someones life?
I believe that the root of the algorithm can be applied to a lot of fields, but right now, I am still working it out to see how valuable it can actually be.
Patenting an Algorithm?
In the highly unlikely event that you've come up with a patentable algorithm that noone has come up with before you, you still need to ask yourself why you would want to patent it. What would it earn you or how would you make money from it. It costs money and takes forever to get a patent, so you better have a way to earn back that money.
Depending on the patent, it will be difficult to know who is actually using your algorithm, and you'll also need to be sure that you are not using any of their patents. Things like these are nearly impossible to know. The one thing it might help you with is if someone is suing you for infringing on their patents, where you might be able to argue that they are infringing on yours.
1. Possibly, depending on how you plan to use/abuse it.
2. Nothing really.
3. Probably a lot more valuable yes.
4. You can't copyright an idea, but you can copyright a writing of that idea.
5. I have no idea what you are asking here.
1. Ethics are hard. Is it ethical to kill an animal for food? Is it ethical to kill a plant for food? Is it ethical to limit someone's action at all?Questions
1) So, if I were to patent an algorithm, do you think it would be unethical?
2) How much would an algorithm go for? I know it depends, but on what?
3) Do you think a machine that can use the algorithm to do something is more valuable than the algorithm itself?
4) If the source code of a game can be protected under copyright law, then doesn't it make since that an algorithm can be protected under the same law( besides, what makes a game different from the next other than the way in which the game was coded, other than art assets)?
5a) Do you think that perhaps the value a lot of games are more so, the processes used to make the games?
5b) Perhaps some algorithm used to solve a game problem could be used in the medical field to save someones life?
2. The minimum filing fee in the US is $70. The process involved is extremely nuanced and usually requires at least one lawyer. The cost to have people do all the work, including the necessary prior art searches, proper citations, proper wording, and getting all the paperwork correct, is anywhere from $1,000 to $10,000 or more depending on complexity.
3. Patents are legal protection for processes. They do not have any intrinsic value. A large number of patents have no value at all, and are merely filed and forgotten. The value of a machine is very different from the value of a legal protection.
4. No. Copyright protects a tangible expression and rights associated with distribution and reproduction. Patents protects processes and methods of performing the process. They are quite different mechanisms for different legal protections.
5a. Watch your language. The processes used to make games are different then the processes encoded inside games. The processes used to make games are things like scrum meetings and sprints and project management and team coordination. Those are not the same as the processes for computing self-shadowed objects, for example.
5b. Possibly, but it is irrelevant. Maybe someone could adapt some AI techniques to apply to medicine. Lots of life-saving processes are patented, yet apart from the costs involved of licensing, fairly few people object to the practice. We don't like when licensing is expensive but we do understand and respect that the innovators should be compensated.
1) So, if I were to patent an algorithm, do you think it would be unethical?
2) How much would an algorithm go for? I know it depends, but on what?
3) Do you think a machine that can use the algorithm to do something is more valuable than the algorithm itself?
4) If the source code of a game can be protected under copyright law, then doesn't it make [sense] that an algorithm can be protected under the same law
4.b. ( besides, what makes a game different from the next other than the way in which the game was coded, other than art assets)?
5)a. Do you think that perhaps the value a lot of games have are more so the processes used to make the games?
5.b. Perhaps some algorithm used to solve a game problem could be used in the medical field to save someones life?
1. There will be people who think so (there are people who think patenting is unethical). What is your priority? Universal goodwill? Or to make profitable products?
2. No more than it's worth to the licensee.
3. If you think you can make more profit by incorporating the algorithm into hardware, then go for it. If you don't, then don't.
4.a. Only the exact precise string of source code can be copyrighted - if someone can produce the same effect using different source code that accomplishes the same thing, then copyright doesn't prevent that.
4.b. Can you name two games that play precisely the same and sound the same, and only the art assets are different?
5.a. Huh?
5.b. Perhaps.
Author
Well, looks like a lot of research has gone into this, and I am sure that buried somewhere behind mountains of text, is something similar, if not more advanced than my small little Eureka.
I guess that's what happens when you try to patent ideas eh? Hehe.
But the subject matter is really intriguing though. Thanks for the responses.
I guess that's what happens when you try to patent ideas eh? Hehe.
But the subject matter is really intriguing though. Thanks for the responses.
1. I think that software patents are a bad thing for various reasons (e.g., that it is basically a patent on maths; that the current system is so broken with how many trivial patents that are granted), though everyone has their own opinion. Also consider, if it's an idea you thought up in a flash, why should that prevent anyone else doing the same thing when they might reasonably think of the same idea? We're not talking about something that took billions of dollars of investment (which is an argument put forward for drug patents - the same rarely applies to software patents). And how many existing ideas and algorithms do you use when you write software - just imagine if all of those were patented...
Though there is the problem that the current system (at least in the US) forces companies to patent as much as possible, otherwise they risk being sued by other companies, and have nothing to defend with. So I tend to judge people/companies by their legal actions.
Are you going into business with a product? Or if not, what do you hope to gain?
3. Writing the patent for "a machine which runs an algorithm" rather than the algorithm is a way of getting round countries that don't allow pure software patents. In that sense, it can be more valuable, though it seems rather a loophole to me, and not something that I would consider more valuable (the "machine" is a pre-existing invention, and running an algorithm on it is trivial).
4. Nope, because algorithms can't be copyrighted, just like rules and ideas, but a particular implementation (written rules, source code) can be. Indeed, the fact that source code is already covered by copyright (and there is no reason for a company to even release it) is an argument for why software patents seem unnecessary.
What makes a game different other than art? All sorts of things, such as level design, storyline, characters, all of which generally can be protected. And what's wrong with games being similar? If that wasn't allowed, you can kiss goodbye to a large number of games, just because someone else happened to get there first with a particular idea or game mechanic.
5. Indeed, but maybe not if it was patented :)
Author
The whole "get there first" thing Is the the new law on patents. I had an idea about 15 years after I was born, but a patent that claimed rights to not only the ideas they had, but to any potential creation someone could make baring similarity to their idea, was patented the year I was born.
And that patent was, and is sat on to this day. So, I figured that is how the patent system was set up (crooked), and the only way to protect yourself from patent trolls or innovation destroyers is to patent your idea so no one sues you for patenting "their" idea.
And that patent was, and is sat on to this day. So, I figured that is how the patent system was set up (crooked), and the only way to protect yourself from patent trolls or innovation destroyers is to patent your idea so no one sues you for patenting "their" idea.
I have a close friend who spent some time in patent law. Regardless of the issues you're asking about, there's something very important to understand: patents have no value if you can't defend/prosecute them. Let's say you have a patent on your algorithm and somebody is using it without your permission. What are you going to do about it? Nothing, that's what. Because you don't have the quarter million dollars to start the case.
Beware that (software) patent rules are different in every country, as an example in European Union there are a lot of restrictions compared to the (tragicomic) US laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention.
1) IMO, software patent should be globally banned (remark: software patents != copyrighted source code.... and just to note: I'm not a FOSS's fan).
2) Nothing in practice and in most of cases.
3) A technical implementation of a problem is different from trying to shield a mathematical proof, however it depends of what are you trying to shield and where.
4) Nope, a source code is a concrete implementation of an idea, or more ideas, created by people's abilities, an algorithm is an abstract and a mathematical representation of something that exists per se by "nature" (or by God/s for some drunk people).
5a) What? Are you asking about software engineering? I think a value of a game resides in the final product and not in development methods used to publish it.
5b) Most of algorithms used in games are well known by public. I honestly I don't see a strong relationship between game programming/engineering with medicine, but since my "medical" knowledges are at high-school level, I cannot have a strong opinion about that. Of course everything could be possible..
I have a close friend who spent some time in patent law. Regardless of the issues you're asking about, there's something very important to understand: patents have no value if you can't defend/prosecute them. Let's say you have a patent on your algorithm and somebody is using it without your permission. What are you going to do about it? Nothing, that's what. Because you don't have the quarter million dollars to start the case.
That's a good point to start : D
Anyway in most countries should be suffice adding a "nil" command to the guilty algorithm to fix the issue.
1) IMO, software patent should be globally banned
I disagree. However, I do believe that there are too many frivolous patents.
But consider the whole idea of why patents exist in the first place, which is to allow you to be compensated for time and money that you spend developing a process, and stop others from making money off your R & D. Without patents, almost nobody would do R & D work. This applies just as much to software as it does to anyone else. If a software company spends two years and several million dollars developing new algorithms, they should be allowed to protect that investment, otherwise anyone who can disassemble code can duplicate it at almost no cost.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
