Robert Silver had an idea. He used his knowledge of computers and algorithms to transform that "idea" into a functional code. This code simply takes multiple images, reduces their dimensions, and combines them in a way that, when viewed from a distance, creates a larger, target image. This code was made so that it could take any slew of images and combine them to create any given target image. Now, observing Silver's "idea" in hindsight seems painstakingly obvious to us - of course you can create an image out of smaller pictures. After all, isn't that how a puzzle works? Each piece has an individual image on it that, when combined in the right order, creates a larger, target image. All Silvers did was create the code that puts the pieces in the correct order.
The question is, was Silvers' work non-obvious enough to merit a patent? At first, I would have said no because the idea of combining a bunch of pictures to create an even larger picture seems blatantly obvious - that's what we do with puzzles, but I find myself now believing that they are patent-worthy because the code for photomosaics are now the norm, but they were not when SIlvers was creating it. Just like the blinking of the text cursor, or the drop-down file menu, those are genius inventions that seem bluntly obvious to us now, but that is only because we have been submerged into using them for so long that it seems like that is the way things should work. The point is, what may seem obvious now may not have been obvious at the time of its inventing. Something isn't obvious until it is a common occurrence, and until Silvers' endeavor with photomosaics, they were not a common occurance and thus were non-obvious enough to merit a patent.
I continued thinking about this topic and asked myself, should a code even be allowed to have a patent? My original answer was no, a code (or a method) cannot be patented. I believed that a patent needs to be assigned to something tangible, but then I got to thinking, what distinguishes a Dell from a Macbook? Given, there are some physical differences in the exterior of the laptops, but why do some people favor Dells over MacBooks? (I cringe that someone could prefer a PC over a Mac, but that's beside the point). Those who are completely incompetent on the subject of computers might favor Dell because it comes in their favorite color, but the majority favors one over the other because of the way it functions, and those functions are nothing but codes. Ultimately, the only way Apple and Dell make money is through these codes, and I guarantee that both companies have their codes secured through multiple patents. If they weren't able to patent these codes, what would happen? There would be millions of people figuring out their codes and applying it in their own devices, resulting in Apple, Dell, and all computer companies going out of business. So in my mind, a patent on a code is a completely reasonable and acceptable idea. If Apple and Dell can get patents on the codes they use for their computers, then why couldn't Robert Silvers?
This is just me thinking out loud, feel free to comment.
On a random side-note, I googled "stupid patents" and found some crazy stuff on freepatentsonline.com. Believe it or not, many of them had to do with methods (i.e. method of exercising a cat with a laser-pointer, method of swinging on a swing, method and apparatus for making a drink hop along a bar counter...the list goes on). Just thought this was interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment