> "It isn't a new invention if it is just software -- it must be part of a greater whole, such as an embedded device."

I see how to you got that idea, but read more carefully. What the examples are intended to show is that:

a) assume the washing machine has no new mechanics, so the washing machine is not patentable.
b) putting a computer program into the washing machine ALSO isn't patentable. That's the point of the law.
c) the computer chip may contain a program which IS a new invention and that program may be patentable.
d) it's patentable not BECAUSE it's a program, it's patentable because it's a new invention - being software is irrelevant

I think you're absolutely correct in the first part of what you said, which is why the second part makes no sense to me. You said:

> I create a machine to do something in a new and novel fashion. I do it using mechanical parts and gears (which are an implementation detail -
> the individual gears and such aren't really new or novel, just the way the machine works overall). I should be able to get a patent for that.

> Now, I rip out the gears and put in motors and software to do the same thing the gears did

It's the invention itself that's patentable. Whether you build a particular version of the invention from gears (metal) or Gears (software) makes no difference -
you might well do both. You could have a crank up gear version that sells for $3 and an electronic version of the same invention for $30. It's the invention
that's patented, not a particular build of it. We agree on that, right?

So why a whole new class of IP separate from patents. Patents cover "useful things". Programs are useful things. I don't see any reason to treat things differently whether they are built of wood, silicone, or silicon.

I do also agree on shorter patent terms, by the way, because the rate of technological change has increased. Technology didn't change nearly much from 1880 - 1900 as it did from 1980 - 2000. Not just with computers - biomedical technology, energy technologies, we're in a faster paced world now, so faster paced patent expiration makes sense. (Also MUCH faster copyright expiration.)

I think that the source code should have to be included as part of the patent application process. So that it can be examined to verify how novel the "invention" really is.

That's interesting. I think the exact opposite. I think that line of thinking, that using new code to do the same old thing makes it new, is exactly what created the problem. I think it would be better to know whether something is new by NOT mentioning if it's on a computer or not. Just say what it DOES. Does it do something new? If so, great, if not, buh-bye. I don't care if you use gears or code to do it.

I believe so, and I believe the bounce back patent is a good example - they didn't invent bouncing.

On the other hand, a meter could display the result of some new invention. We know progress meters are almost useless, especially in software but in
other areas as well. The fact that they've built 90% of the a new stealth fighter's parts doesn't mean the project is nearly complete, given that they've
completed the bolts but not the computer system. If someone INVENTED a new thing to measure progress accurately, that new invention would
be new whether it was displayed on a stick or on a screen.

The Techdirt article you've cited to try to "prove me wrong" quotes the bill as follows:

"where the actual contribution of an invention lies solely in it being a computer program, it is ineligible for patent protection... it will not be possible to obtain a patent for an invention that involves or makes use of the computer program if the sole inventive feature is that it is a computer program".

In other words, exactly what I said.

You're looking at the 2010 version. The version that passed replaces that line with saying that it;s not patentable if the only thing new about it is "on a computer".
As passed, new inventions are new inventions - whether computers are involved or not.

I made it less clear than it could be by quoting too much from the clear. This law says it's not patentable if:

"if the actual contribution made by the alleged invention lies *solely* in it being a computer program."

So in other words, for any alleged invention, take out the words "software" and "computer" from the description.
Does it still sound like a new invention? If so, it's patentable. If not, it's not. It's either new or not, and it doesn't matter whether it's
made of smashed wood or powdered iron.

(Note that both "physical" machines and software machines can be made of either. My mom created some of her software by punching cards made of wood pulp, much as a carpenter would work wood to build some new invention. I created my first software by manipulating bits of iron to form machines.)

Compile: to create a set of *machine instructions* from a high-level programming language, using a compiler

Grace Hopper, who coined the term "compile", defined it as "accept things that were people-oriented and then use the computer to translate to *machine code*.”

A primary purpose of compiling code is so that the user doesn't need to have a copy of the matching version of the interpreter. Compiled code runs by itself.
Python bytecode is a couple of steps removed from machine code. Look at how many lines of code are required in the bytecode interpreter to interpret that bytecode and do something with it. Compiled code doesn't need any interpreter, much less hundreds of thousands of lines of interpreter.

Since there is no such thing as a "software patent" in law, it's important to understand what has been changed, and to be clear about what could or should be changed. Here's the key wording of the new law. It's not patentable if:

      "A claim in a patent or an application relates to a computer program as such if the actual contribution made by the alleged invention lies solely in it being a computer program."

In other words, if it's not a new invention, just an old invention with "on a computer" added to the end, it's not patentable. That is, if it's not a new invention if made of wood, it's still not new when made of silicon (or magnetic tracks).

I'm about as big a defender of "software patents" as you'll find on Slashdot and that to me is obviously right to me. If it's not new, it's not new.
Putting it on a computer doesn't make it new. Duh and yay for them for explicitly stating what should be obvious.

What they didn't change, and really can't as a practical matter, is they did not declare that a new invention magically becomes "not new" if it uses a computer.
If I invent a way to resurrect dinosaurs ala Jurassic Park, and they key invention for doing so is a gene sequencing computer program, that's a new invention.
The fact that I use software for it neither makes it new nor makes it "not new".

> One of the best obfuscations is to embed an interpreter into your code, and then do all the hard work in the bytecode.

"One of the best" is kind of nebulous, but it's ALWAYS more secure against reverse engineering to distribute a compiled binary, machine code. At least on a PC, or any platform with a decent debugger. Here's why. If you do anything with an interpreter or bytecode, the attacker has at least two options. They can choose to EITHER:

A) Use a debugger to dump the generated machine code and work from that.

OR

B) Use any other method to go after the provided file, the interpreter, or the bytecode.

Distributing a compiled exe (machine code) forces the attacker to do A, eliminating all of the options listed in B.

Of course, what I do, what I think is better, is I ship readable source. Any security needed is handled by actual security, such as encryption of sensitive data, rather than by trying to obfuscate how the program works.

A pyc is pretty much just a parse tree. It's been syntax checked, etc. but not really compiled. As docs.python.com explains, a pyc doesn't run any faster than a .py. The heading on the docs page is:

"Compiled" Python

With compiled in quotes because though some people use that word, it's not really true.

I would pay some of the major contributors or maintainers who developed, tested, or documented the code you use. If they are self-employed like many developers,
they can handle it just like any other invoice. No need to label it "support" if you don't want support, you can pay for FOSS software if you want to! I contribute a lot to Moodle, a little to Apache. If you use either of those, I'll gladly accept some accept some payment.

On taxes, it would be BETTER for them to treat it as a donation. So no, this doesn't sound like a tax dodge. it sounds like they have some spare money in a budget for software / a certain project, they use FOSS software, and they want to pay for the software they use. Yay for them.

However, giving money away frequently requires a approval process by the board of directors, which meets for times per year, so if it takes two board meetings that's six months. (This so that mid-managers don't give company money to their brothers.)

iOS (iPad and iPhone) is the walled garden.
Mac runs any FOSS applications you want, so yes Mac is great for free and open software users.

I used Linux exclusively for many years. When I was given a Mac Pro with 32 GB of RAM, two $400 graphics cards, etc. I decided to try it out. In 18 months of use, I've not found any OSS applications that don't run nicely on the Mac.

> you are not lacking better data points - what bank lends money out without knowing credit history?

The ones in TFA. That's been mentioned about a dozen times in the comments also, btw.

Getting a bunch of speeding tickets doesn't affect your ability to pay your bills? Either part of your paycheck goes to pay the tickets, or you EVENTUALLY go to jail, which again makes it harder to pay your bills.

Along with the ability to pay the bills there's whether or not you will be responsible enough to actually do so. That ends up coming down to whether you do what needs to be done, or do whatever you feel like at the moment. People who mow the lawn even when they don't feel like it and go to work even when they don't feel like it might pay their bills even when they don't feel like it.

So yeah , there's actually a good reason nobody wants to loan their money to you.