Comments on: Software Patent of the Week: Hash Functions Are Not Novel http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Fri, 25 May 2012 18:27:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-36804 MikeT Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:26:51 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-36804 <p>Noel, if the USPTO would actually grant this patent, then its standards are what are subjective and broken. In this case, it's very, very obvious. There are only two ways to uniquely identify something. Qualify it, or give it a unique id.</p> Noel, if the USPTO would actually grant this patent, then its standards are what are subjective and broken. In this case, it’s very, very obvious. There are only two ways to uniquely identify something. Qualify it, or give it a unique id.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-54496 MikeT Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:26:51 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-54496 <p>Noel, if the USPTO would actually grant this patent, then its standards are what are subjective and broken. In this case, it's very, very obvious. There are only two ways to uniquely identify something. Qualify it, or give it a unique id.</p> Noel, if the USPTO would actually grant this patent, then its standards are what are subjective and broken. In this case, it’s very, very obvious. There are only two ways to uniquely identify something. Qualify it, or give it a unique id.

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-36803 Tim Lee Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:15:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-36803 <p>Noel, I think you prove my point. I freely admit that I'm not an expert on the ins and outs of the USPTO's (or the Federal Circuit's) obviousness and novelty rules. However, given that <i>my whole point</i> is that those rules are screwed up, I don't see how that's relevant. Any patent system that grants this patent is broken. Knowing the details about why it's screwed up might help us craft a solution, but at the moment my goal is simply to document the extent of the problem. If and when I do a more formal paper on what's wrong with software patents and how to fix them, I'll be sure to learn the gory details about how the current rules work.</p> Noel, I think you prove my point. I freely admit that I’m not an expert on the ins and outs of the USPTO’s (or the Federal Circuit’s) obviousness and novelty rules. However, given that my whole point is that those rules are screwed up, I don’t see how that’s relevant. Any patent system that grants this patent is broken. Knowing the details about why it’s screwed up might help us craft a solution, but at the moment my goal is simply to document the extent of the problem. If and when I do a more formal paper on what’s wrong with software patents and how to fix them, I’ll be sure to learn the gory details about how the current rules work.

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-54495 Tim Lee Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:15:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-54495 <p>Noel, I think you prove my point. I freely admit that I'm not an expert on the ins and outs of the USPTO's (or the Federal Circuit's) obviousness and novelty rules. However, given that <i>my whole point</i> is that those rules are screwed up, I don't see how that's relevant. Any patent system that grants this patent is broken. Knowing the details about why it's screwed up might help us craft a solution, but at the moment my goal is simply to document the extent of the problem. If and when I do a more formal paper on what's wrong with software patents and how to fix them, I'll be sure to learn the gory details about how the current rules work.</p> Noel, I think you prove my point. I freely admit that I’m not an expert on the ins and outs of the USPTO’s (or the Federal Circuit’s) obviousness and novelty rules. However, given that my whole point is that those rules are screwed up, I don’t see how that’s relevant. Any patent system that grants this patent is broken. Knowing the details about why it’s screwed up might help us craft a solution, but at the moment my goal is simply to document the extent of the problem. If and when I do a more formal paper on what’s wrong with software patents and how to fix them, I’ll be sure to learn the gory details about how the current rules work.

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-36802 Noel Le Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:55:46 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-36802 <p>Well, Snorre, I have some friends who are or used to be at the USPTO, and am not going to criticize their work. However, the USPTO's standards for novelty and obviousness are, as you flamboyantly suggest, a bit outdated.</p> Well, Snorre, I have some friends who are or used to be at the USPTO, and am not going to criticize their work. However, the USPTO’s standards for novelty and obviousness are, as you flamboyantly suggest, a bit outdated.

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-54494 Noel Le Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:55:46 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-54494 <p>Well, Snorre, I have some friends who are or used to be at the USPTO, and am not going to criticize their work. However, the USPTO's standards for novelty and obviousness are, as you flamboyantly suggest, a bit outdated.</p> Well, Snorre, I have some friends who are or used to be at the USPTO, and am not going to criticize their work. However, the USPTO’s standards for novelty and obviousness are, as you flamboyantly suggest, a bit outdated.

]]> By: Snorre http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-36801 Snorre Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:44:32 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-36801 <p>I'd guess that the USPTO bureaucrats think of novelty and obviousness like this: "WOW IT'S THE INTARWEBS THEY ARE FAST ZOOOM POW WOW A ROCKET IN SPACE HOW DO THEY THINK THIS UP!"</p> <p>Maybe some of them have some kids who use bittorrent or pretty much any other p2p file sharing method, and could enlighten them about hashing? Or, you know, computers in general?</p> I’d guess that the USPTO bureaucrats think of novelty and obviousness like this: “WOW IT’S THE INTARWEBS THEY ARE FAST ZOOOM POW WOW A ROCKET IN SPACE HOW DO THEY THINK THIS UP!”

Maybe some of them have some kids who use bittorrent or pretty much any other p2p file sharing method, and could enlighten them about hashing? Or, you know, computers in general?

]]> By: Snorre http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-54493 Snorre Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:44:32 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-54493 <p>I'd guess that the USPTO bureaucrats think of novelty and obviousness like this: "WOW IT'S THE INTARWEBS THEY ARE FAST ZOOOM POW WOW A ROCKET IN SPACE HOW DO THEY THINK THIS UP!"<br><br>Maybe some of them have some kids who use bittorrent or pretty much any other p2p file sharing method, and could enlighten them about hashing? Or, you know, computers in general?</p> I’d guess that the USPTO bureaucrats think of novelty and obviousness like this: “WOW IT’S THE INTARWEBS THEY ARE FAST ZOOOM POW WOW A ROCKET IN SPACE HOW DO THEY THINK THIS UP!”

Maybe some of them have some kids who use bittorrent or pretty much any other p2p file sharing method, and could enlighten them about hashing? Or, you know, computers in general?

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-36800 Noel Le Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:34:00 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-36800 <p>Well, I'm not caught up on USPTO re-examination procedures, but then I'm not doing a patent of the week series where I need to invent my own standards for novelty and obviousness:):)</p> Well, I’m not caught up on USPTO re-examination procedures, but then I’m not doing a patent of the week series where I need to invent my own standards for novelty and obviousness:):)

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-54492 Noel Le Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:34:00 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-54492 <p>Well, I'm not caught up on USPTO re-examination procedures, but then I'm not doing a patent of the week series where I need to invent my own standards for novelty and obviousness:):)</p> Well, I’m not caught up on USPTO re-examination procedures, but then I’m not doing a patent of the week series where I need to invent my own standards for novelty and obviousness:):)

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-36799 Tim Lee Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:42:09 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-36799 <p>Noel, enlighten me. How would the USPTO evaluate this patent, in light of the fact that hashing is a well-known and widely documented computer science concept?</p> Noel, enlighten me. How would the USPTO evaluate this patent, in light of the fact that hashing is a well-known and widely documented computer science concept?

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-54491 Tim Lee Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:42:09 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-54491 <p>Noel, enlighten me. How would the USPTO evaluate this patent, in light of the fact that hashing is a well-known and widely documented computer science concept?</p> Noel, enlighten me. How would the USPTO evaluate this patent, in light of the fact that hashing is a well-known and widely documented computer science concept?

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-36798 Noel Le Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:18:23 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-36798 <p>Tim, there is actually a standard for novelty in patent doctrine. Even though some technologies may not be novel to you, it may be more productive to talk about novelty in the context of how a court or the USPTO would consider it. The same goes with obviousness. Even though you may call some things obvious, you're using your subjective standard rather than anything dealing with our patent system.</p> Tim, there is actually a standard for novelty in patent doctrine. Even though some technologies may not be novel to you, it may be more productive to talk about novelty in the context of how a court or the USPTO would consider it. The same goes with obviousness. Even though you may call some things obvious, you’re using your subjective standard rather than anything dealing with our patent system.

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-54490 Noel Le Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:18:23 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-54490 <p>Tim, there is actually a standard for novelty in patent doctrine. Even though some technologies may not be novel to you, it may be more productive to talk about novelty in the context of how a court or the USPTO would consider it. The same goes with obviousness. Even though you may call some things obvious, you're using your subjective standard rather than anything dealing with our patent system.</p> Tim, there is actually a standard for novelty in patent doctrine. Even though some technologies may not be novel to you, it may be more productive to talk about novelty in the context of how a court or the USPTO would consider it. The same goes with obviousness. Even though you may call some things obvious, you’re using your subjective standard rather than anything dealing with our patent system.

]]> By: Gary McGath http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-36797 Gary McGath Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:15:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-36797 <p>As is typical for software patents, it's painfully difficult to tell by reading it what is being patented, even if you're an experienced software developer. I wonder if that's part of the reason why so many absurd software patents are issued.</p> As is typical for software patents, it’s painfully difficult to tell by reading it what is being patented, even if you’re an experienced software developer. I wonder if that’s part of the reason why so many absurd software patents are issued.

]]> By: Gary McGath http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-54489 Gary McGath Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:15:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-54489 <p>As is typical for software patents, it's painfully difficult to tell by reading it what is being patented, even if you're an experienced software developer. I wonder if that's part of the reason why so many absurd software patents are issued.</p> As is typical for software patents, it’s painfully difficult to tell by reading it what is being patented, even if you’re an experienced software developer. I wonder if that’s part of the reason why so many absurd software patents are issued.

]]> By: Stephan Sokolow http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-36796 Stephan Sokolow Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:14:37 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-36796 <p>And then there's CRC, which came before MD5 and is used for validity checksums in the popular Zip archive format. (and due to it's small output hash length, that's about all it's good for)</p> And then there’s CRC, which came before MD5 and is used for validity checksums in the popular Zip archive format. (and due to it’s small output hash length, that’s about all it’s good for)

]]> By: Stephan Sokolow http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/comment-page-1/#comment-54488 Stephan Sokolow Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:14:37 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/17/software-patent-of-the-week-hash-functions-are-not-novel/#comment-54488 <p>And then there's CRC, which came before MD5 and is used for validity checksums in the popular Zip archive format. (and due to it's small output hash length, that's about all it's good for)</p> And then there’s CRC, which came before MD5 and is used for validity checksums in the popular Zip archive format. (and due to it’s small output hash length, that’s about all it’s good for)

]]>