Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If there is a different way of implementing it than described in the patent, did the patent owner really invent the other method?


Yes. If an algorithm requires a "sort" step you are not required to enumerate all possible implementations of a sorting operation because it is not material to the algorithm being described. It is sufficient that each operation is clearly specified; the novel arrangement of those myriad operations is the patentable subject matter. In the same way, novel chemical synthesis processes are eminently patentable but the individual synthesis steps are not in themselves novel and could be often be implemented in several different ways.

Most (all?) patentable subject matters work this way; the abstract process is patentable and the reduction to a specific implementation is protected by copyright because they are unrelated bodies of work. It is not uncommon, for example, to license a chemical process (read: algorithm) patent from one company and license a copyrighted implementation design from another company. Computer algorithm patents work the same way.


Still think it would be an okay patentability requirment to include source code. Yes, it is just one embodiment, but let's see the embodiment.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: