Software patents are mostly garbage and unneeded. And I say that having some in my name (I actually tried to get my name off them, but our lawyers said it's not possible).
Show me one useful software patent that (a) is not "obvious to one skilled in the art", and (b) benefits society by being granted a monopoly. Just one!
Software rarely requires expensive research that would be worth protecting.
Rather than enabling a fair market, this takes fairness out of the market.
Software patents are like getting a patent on "Murder story with final revelation of who did it." Maybe add one or two features, like a "detective with hat", etc.
In one fell swoop you would be able to own most murder mysteries.
Software (like books, stories, art, etc) is better handled by Copyright law. May the one who actually has a better product win!
One cannot (in the US) get a patent for software itself. This was settled a while ago. There needs to be more in the claims. In fact, the patent discussed here does not claim continued fractions and nobody would be in danger using them even if the patent issued as is (which is not certain, because the patent claims rather trivial modification of a classic neural network architecture, which should be brought up by the examiner as obvious).
Patents are propelling the society when they work as intended. They made XIX century and at least good chunk of XX century. Without patents, people fall back to copying each other, because it is much easier to copy than to innovate.
I agree with your rant. I have a similar one. I personally think that software should mostly just not be patentable at all, since (among others) these things are not patentable according to US patent law: scientific discoveries, mathematical methods, aesthetic creations, and rules or methods for performing mental acts.
In addition, software is also copyrightable, which makes much more sense than patents for protecting unauthorized use. IMO, patents for software should be mostly eliminated, and even copyright terms should be much shorter.
What would you think about still having software patents, but having them expire in 2-5 years? I feel like the concept of a patent is still a good one, but the time it takes to go from zero to a product is drastically lower with computer programming. The patent length should reflect that.
How would you feel about patenting language? I.e. If you speak with certain words or certain patterns then you have to pay a royalty (only for 2 to 5 years).
What was the societal benefit of putting 20 years of monopoly on that algorithm? I don't think potential profit was a big motivator in that research work.
And that patent got invalidated in most of the world anyway.
You think they were just going to sit on that and do nothing if they couldn't get a patent? Or that they'd turn it into a product without the underlying math being revealed right away? I don't believe either of those for a second.
>Show me one useful software patent that ... (b) benefits society by being granted a monopoly. Just one!
that's a bullshit criterion, and nothing about what you said applies to software in particular.
it's generally agreed that monopolies are bad for society, but patents only grant a temporary monopoly to reward innovation, in exchange for which society gets disclosure (at the time patent systems were promulgated, many ideas died with their inventors as trade secrets) and encourages more R&D by creating a system for payoff.
The only "system for payoff" I've seen with software patents is patent trolls. Are there cases of software inventors being rewarded for their software more fairly because they had a patent?
I think every every company I've worked at that had R&D had some kind of reward system for patents. Yes, most of the software patents were nonsense but those who have their names on it still did get paid.
It's not bullshit. You said it yourself, the benefits are supposed to be disclosure and encouraging R&D.
But disclosure is rarely an issue with software, and patents are bad at properly disclosing software details in the first place.
And in software there's already a huge motivation to do R&D, while patents are more likely to block useful work than in most fields. Even if I think of highly optimization-motivated fields like video encoding, patents slow down innovation more than they accelerate it.
So can you name some software patents where those motivating factors actually worked? It's a fair question.
The patent system for software is garbage, but it also doesn't seem to jive with the title. They don't claim to invent continued fractions, what they patent is applying them to some domain.
> A method, a neural network, and a computer program product are provided that provide training of neural networks with continued fractions architectures.
It's a bit like the propelling device https://patents.google.com/patent/US1331952A/en -- it doesn't invent or patent shoes, or invent or patent springs, but it patents attaching springs to shoes.
It would seem using continued fractions with elliptic curves what the author wants to do, wouldn't be covered.
However, I still think it can still be challenged if someone can show that continued fractions have been used in with NN before. Or even better, maybe pytorch or other open source projects can explicitly reject crap that's patented. If you put your shit in a junk patent, take it out of the project and enjoy yourself, don't spread it around. So, if the authors of the patent are the ones pushing for the inclusion, then someone should challenge that and have it removed unless the patent is withdrawn.
The problem here is whether just applying some well studied technique to a new area like AI is really inventive enough to be patentable. There were loads of patents which basically added "in a computer" to some existing technique. Just because NN's are novel doesn't mean people should be able to get an exclusionary property right over the use of well known techniques in NN's because they put in half a day's work to be the first to apply that technique to NN's. This isn't the Guinness book of records.
Misleading. This has not been patented. The author links to a patent publication, which happens to the vast majority of patent filings in the U.S.
There was a rejection of this patent application mailed by the USPTO in August 2025.
Rejection is when the fun begins. Note that I'm not a lawyer, but I do have 20+ patents, none in the software realm. Rejection means you get to revise your application and re-submit with a new deadline and new fees. Your chances of getting it accepted on the second or third try can vary.
Applications are seldom withdrawn or ultimately rejected altogether, but may be granted with severely narrowed claims. Also, you can revise the claims without changing the text, within limits, which results in granting of a patent with a very broad text followed by narrow claims
Before this devolves into the morass of outraged comments that usually comprises any discussion of patents, here is the golden rule I coined for such threads:
RTFC: Read the Fucking Claims
The claims are the only part of the patent that really matter because those are the only enforceable language. Plus, this is a patent application so the claims have not even been examined yet.
Without commenting on the merits of this patent itself, remember that new applications of existing techniques are still novel, and hence patentable. In fact, if you think about it, almost all inventions and innovations are just applying novel combinations of well-known techniques to new use-cases. (Anything that doesn't fit that definition and introduces genuinely new methods is usually in the "groundbreaking" category.)
So I'd guess "applying old technique to new problem" is probably the case here. I'm no subject matter expert, and there may be prior art that invalidates this, or it may not meet the non-obviousness bar... but when the "200 year old math" came about neural networks were not really a thing.
Whether or not the patent was actually granted in this case, I have not been able to think of a compelling reason to have patents for software. In fact, I think most intellectual property laws need to be seriously rethought.
If the objective is to maximize investment by protecting successful results, I don't think our system is doing a very good job.
This is the primary reason IP patents should be thrown out. They're far too easy to get, exist primarily for the purpose of rent seeking, and generally provide nothing useful to the public knowledge.
While we might get to laugh at those silly people with their software patents (and describing them as toilet paper is quite funny) it still has real world effects for us.
For many years I had to install a linux distro and then mess around with freetype because there was a valid patent on subpixel hinting that was valid in the US and irrelevant in Europe but because the distro's I used at the time where US based I got caught in the cross fire.
Given the huge imbalance between US tech and Europe Tech (and rest of the world really) in software they sneeze, we get flu.
That only stopped been a problem when the patents expired[1].
That's why you should always use either European or Canadian mirrors.
On FreeType, maybe Clear Type related; but I remember some slight hinting methods not related to cleartype which looked far superior on flat LCD screens IMHO.
Another one was Lame and MP3. And I remember the codecs issue with the Penguin Liberation Front for Mandrake, LIVNA for another distro and Debian Multimedia, among others.
Software patents are mostly garbage and unneeded. And I say that having some in my name (I actually tried to get my name off them, but our lawyers said it's not possible).
Show me one useful software patent that (a) is not "obvious to one skilled in the art", and (b) benefits society by being granted a monopoly. Just one!
Software rarely requires expensive research that would be worth protecting. Rather than enabling a fair market, this takes fairness out of the market.
Software patents are like getting a patent on "Murder story with final revelation of who did it." Maybe add one or two features, like a "detective with hat", etc. In one fell swoop you would be able to own most murder mysteries.
Software (like books, stories, art, etc) is better handled by Copyright law. May the one who actually has a better product win!
Sorry for the rant.
One cannot (in the US) get a patent for software itself. This was settled a while ago. There needs to be more in the claims. In fact, the patent discussed here does not claim continued fractions and nobody would be in danger using them even if the patent issued as is (which is not certain, because the patent claims rather trivial modification of a classic neural network architecture, which should be brought up by the examiner as obvious).
Patents are propelling the society when they work as intended. They made XIX century and at least good chunk of XX century. Without patents, people fall back to copying each other, because it is much easier to copy than to innovate.
I agree with your rant. I have a similar one. I personally think that software should mostly just not be patentable at all, since (among others) these things are not patentable according to US patent law: scientific discoveries, mathematical methods, aesthetic creations, and rules or methods for performing mental acts.
In addition, software is also copyrightable, which makes much more sense than patents for protecting unauthorized use. IMO, patents for software should be mostly eliminated, and even copyright terms should be much shorter.
What would you think about still having software patents, but having them expire in 2-5 years? I feel like the concept of a patent is still a good one, but the time it takes to go from zero to a product is drastically lower with computer programming. The patent length should reflect that.
How would you feel about patenting language? I.e. If you speak with certain words or certain patterns then you have to pay a royalty (only for 2 to 5 years).
I agree that software patents are generally garbage and hurt innovation.
Unfortunately, there are probably many people here on HN that make a living off software patents.
RSA
What was the societal benefit of putting 20 years of monopoly on that algorithm? I don't think potential profit was a big motivator in that research work.
And that patent got invalidated in most of the world anyway.
The societal benefit was having RSA publicly described. MIT isn't a charity.
You think they were just going to sit on that and do nothing if they couldn't get a patent? Or that they'd turn it into a product without the underlying math being revealed right away? I don't believe either of those for a second.
>Show me one useful software patent that ... (b) benefits society by being granted a monopoly. Just one!
that's a bullshit criterion, and nothing about what you said applies to software in particular.
it's generally agreed that monopolies are bad for society, but patents only grant a temporary monopoly to reward innovation, in exchange for which society gets disclosure (at the time patent systems were promulgated, many ideas died with their inventors as trade secrets) and encourages more R&D by creating a system for payoff.
The only "system for payoff" I've seen with software patents is patent trolls. Are there cases of software inventors being rewarded for their software more fairly because they had a patent?
I think every every company I've worked at that had R&D had some kind of reward system for patents. Yes, most of the software patents were nonsense but those who have their names on it still did get paid.
It's not bullshit. You said it yourself, the benefits are supposed to be disclosure and encouraging R&D.
But disclosure is rarely an issue with software, and patents are bad at properly disclosing software details in the first place.
And in software there's already a huge motivation to do R&D, while patents are more likely to block useful work than in most fields. Even if I think of highly optimization-motivated fields like video encoding, patents slow down innovation more than they accelerate it.
So can you name some software patents where those motivating factors actually worked? It's a fair question.
Gold star comment.
The patent system for software is garbage, but it also doesn't seem to jive with the title. They don't claim to invent continued fractions, what they patent is applying them to some domain.
https://patents.justia.com/patent/20230401438#history
> A method, a neural network, and a computer program product are provided that provide training of neural networks with continued fractions architectures.
It's a bit like the propelling device https://patents.google.com/patent/US1331952A/en -- it doesn't invent or patent shoes, or invent or patent springs, but it patents attaching springs to shoes.
It would seem using continued fractions with elliptic curves what the author wants to do, wouldn't be covered.
However, I still think it can still be challenged if someone can show that continued fractions have been used in with NN before. Or even better, maybe pytorch or other open source projects can explicitly reject crap that's patented. If you put your shit in a junk patent, take it out of the project and enjoy yourself, don't spread it around. So, if the authors of the patent are the ones pushing for the inclusion, then someone should challenge that and have it removed unless the patent is withdrawn.
The problem here is whether just applying some well studied technique to a new area like AI is really inventive enough to be patentable. There were loads of patents which basically added "in a computer" to some existing technique. Just because NN's are novel doesn't mean people should be able to get an exclusionary property right over the use of well known techniques in NN's because they put in half a day's work to be the first to apply that technique to NN's. This isn't the Guinness book of records.
Misleading. This has not been patented. The author links to a patent publication, which happens to the vast majority of patent filings in the U.S. There was a rejection of this patent application mailed by the USPTO in August 2025.
Rejection is when the fun begins. Note that I'm not a lawyer, but I do have 20+ patents, none in the software realm. Rejection means you get to revise your application and re-submit with a new deadline and new fees. Your chances of getting it accepted on the second or third try can vary.
Applications are seldom withdrawn or ultimately rejected altogether, but may be granted with severely narrowed claims. Also, you can revise the claims without changing the text, within limits, which results in granting of a patent with a very broad text followed by narrow claims
Isn't this just a patent application? Also what are the actual patent claims? I was not able to find a link to the application.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230401438A1
Before this devolves into the morass of outraged comments that usually comprises any discussion of patents, here is the golden rule I coined for such threads:
RTFC: Read the Fucking Claims
The claims are the only part of the patent that really matter because those are the only enforceable language. Plus, this is a patent application so the claims have not even been examined yet.
Without commenting on the merits of this patent itself, remember that new applications of existing techniques are still novel, and hence patentable. In fact, if you think about it, almost all inventions and innovations are just applying novel combinations of well-known techniques to new use-cases. (Anything that doesn't fit that definition and introduces genuinely new methods is usually in the "groundbreaking" category.)
So I'd guess "applying old technique to new problem" is probably the case here. I'm no subject matter expert, and there may be prior art that invalidates this, or it may not meet the non-obviousness bar... but when the "200 year old math" came about neural networks were not really a thing.
When I worked there many decades ago, I had pressure and saw people get rewards for patenting everything you could. Seems like things haven't changed.
I don't think they are patenting any classical math as the blog claims. It's an architecture using CF that is patented, I believe.
Ofcourse, patents are trash.
Whether or not the patent was actually granted in this case, I have not been able to think of a compelling reason to have patents for software. In fact, I think most intellectual property laws need to be seriously rethought.
If the objective is to maximize investment by protecting successful results, I don't think our system is doing a very good job.
I remember reading that IBM holds a staggering number of patents - over 150,000 in the US alone.
Reminds this: https://theonion.com/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-181956466...
This is the primary reason IP patents should be thrown out. They're far too easy to get, exist primarily for the purpose of rent seeking, and generally provide nothing useful to the public knowledge.
Good in case of Europe has a shortage on toilet paper.
Also, this might be tangentially related to Fractan. Any Mathematician there? if there's some relation, the patent might be void/null.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRACTRAN
While we might get to laugh at those silly people with their software patents (and describing them as toilet paper is quite funny) it still has real world effects for us.
For many years I had to install a linux distro and then mess around with freetype because there was a valid patent on subpixel hinting that was valid in the US and irrelevant in Europe but because the distro's I used at the time where US based I got caught in the cross fire.
Given the huge imbalance between US tech and Europe Tech (and rest of the world really) in software they sneeze, we get flu.
That only stopped been a problem when the patents expired[1].
[1] https://freetype.org/patents.html
That's why you should always use either European or Canadian mirrors. On FreeType, maybe Clear Type related; but I remember some slight hinting methods not related to cleartype which looked far superior on flat LCD screens IMHO.
Another one was Lame and MP3. And I remember the codecs issue with the Penguin Liberation Front for Mandrake, LIVNA for another distro and Debian Multimedia, among others.