@EricShain I had seen that, but didn't know what to answer. It seems like the questions momentum died out pretty fast

Maybe redefining the site not to be about prior art requests would be a solution

@DukeZhou for me the patent system is about advancing technology, not knowledge. That's why Europe tries excluding games, software and to some extent algorithms

@DonQuiKong My understanding is that the Patent system is about fostering innovation by providing incentives to investors. Excluding the most significant area of innovation (by which I mean algorithmic intelligence) the Patent boards betray their fundamental lack of understanding of, admittedly, extraordinarily complex subjects.

The case can be made that everything, including physical, mechanical innovation, is based on Game Theory (i.e. how best to optimize and improve current technology) and Game Theory is algorithmic.

The upside is you can't restrict study of algorithms and models, only commercial production and distribution. All of the cases involving "purely abstract ideas", so far as I can tell, involve flawed claims which include non-novel processes.

*inventors (I accidentally typed investors in the first line.)

Although it's true you'd be able to restrict use of a patented algorithm in a commercial process, the thing about algorithmic problem solving is there are always many ways to achieve the same result. But if X algorithm is more efficient, and protected, it would need to be licensed or another method would have to be utilized.) The beauty of patents is they don't extend for very long, compared to other forms of IP protection.

Thus the benefits of the most efficient algorithm, if it is fundamental enough as to be irreducible, is eventually available to everyone.

@DukeZhou we'll have to deal with how it is I guess

but patents seem to be the only protection one can get for an algorithm - if the respective patent office allows it

Regarding game patents, I had several solo practitioner who recommend against pursuing it, but the feedback I got experienced attorneys at large firms (personal connections) was that it's worth pursuing. In addition to my engaged attorney, who specializes in game patents, I have two advisory attorneys, one in tech and one in biotech, with no financial incentive, and all believe it is worth pursuing.

The caveat, right now, is that we're only pursuing technical implementation, and possibly an algorithmic strategy. (The game method can also be used as a method of map generation, although the material transformation test is currently too limited, in not understanding information as a tangible product.)

The patent actually represents a "basic patent", and if the playgames derived are widely adopted, it would be a validation of the merit of the invention, and certainly be worth pursuing, even in the face of denial of a grant, for many decades to come.

:)

@DukeZhou there's almost always some way to go for the technical implementation afaik (at least in the US). Is the application public already?

Will be shortly, althouth I'm going to publish it concurrent with the initial product, as a professional courtesy to other designers (also required per the PCT filing apparently)

I have noticed the outlook tends to change when patent attorneys see the type of game mechanics I'm working with

I'll definitely link when it's up!

The PCT requires you to publish your application if using it in a product? Do you have a source for that? Hadn't heard about it

I'm not actually sure what the publication requirement refers to (just acting on the advice of one of my consulting attorneys, who mentioned it as a requirement, but not necessarily in regard to the product release...)

@DonQuiKong I was quite impressive how more responsive Stack Exchange Meta was. In any case, Ask Patents is really not working for prior art requests and that was one of the primary reasons for it.

@EricShain yes, it's a big site. I guess ask patents has just changed. It was always based on the misconception that there are still thousands of overly broad patent applications being granted all the time. Most of those prior art requests were for patents that got rejected by the examiner anyways, without any help from us

@DonQuiKong There are over broad applications, primarily in software. That said, the experts on software prior art are in the software sites, not patent experts. The main problem is that with software most of the prior art isn't in other patents which means the examiner may not find it. What I was trying to find out is whether there was a mechanism for Ask Patents to migrate a well formulated prior art request to a SE site where appropriate experts reside.

Yeah, but most of them don't stay broad. Every good application starts broad