I may be wrong, and overall I'm very sympathetic to changing the patent system to incentivize actually making things. That said, I think changes to policy must be interpreted in an adversarial context, assuming that people will game the system as much as possible. With this policy, patent filers will clearly be incentivized to give away as little of the store as possible. Also, determining whether the code really works, and really represents the system being protected, is just as difficult a problem (if not more so) than interpreting claims today.
back
1 comments
I don't disagree, we should always have a critical stance and understand how the systems we build can and will be subverted against the intended design.
But that isn't a reason to not build them, and in this case, the effort is to repair an already broken system that has been subverted. If creatively deconstructing it isn't an option, we have to add more "features" and this case the added constraint of functioning code.
We can disagree all day what functioning code means, but the goal is worthy and should be explored.
How we apply policy that meets the intended goals and isn't gamed is the problem for law makers. Good thing we have spirit as a backstop and not just letter. A certain hedge fund and a billion dollars in AI and civilization could collapse.
Right now, the inmates are running the patent system, if we value everyone's ability to participate in innovation, we need a way to reduce BS patents and make them intrinsically more valuable as a form of knowledge transfer.