Patents and Quantum Computing

Paul Guinnessy writes "Will the patents taken out on quantum computers expire before such computers are ever built? I have surveyed all the top researchers in quantum computing to find out. The results have been published in Physics World magazine. "

Re:Quantum Computers vs. Perpetual Motion

[Anonymous Coward]

This implies that quantum computers are somehow similar in validity to Perpetual Motion. No laws of physics forbid quantum computers. Quite the opposite, they are using fundamental laws to expand what is possible with computation.

Re:patents should not be possible yet

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong. (a little)

There's serious experimental research in quantum computing.

And I don't believe that a physical device must necessarily have been already built for patents, that was an old rule.

Whether or not it is patentable doesn't have much relevance to whether it's preliminary or not, that's an issue for markets and scientists to decide.

Of course, in this case it is, and the patents will present no serious impediment to actual future production of a real product.

The real motivation for getting this sort of patent is to validate to the granting agencies, national labs, and university bureaucracy that the researchers are doing ''real work'', and thus gaining some longer-term institutional support for their work. Just publishing papers doesn't do it any more.

cheers,
a non-quantum-computing physicist

Re:Quantum Computers vs. Perpetual Motion

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not think this is a good idea. Do not know how the situation is in the U.S. but in Germany for instance a patent can cost quite some $$$.

The requirement for a working model might well result in the small guy with a bright idea finally loses everything since it is the company that has the resources.

Not that uncommon already. I agree though something must be done, especially if an invention is the direct result of basic science. Something people finally pay taxes for and it is a bit unfair to make them pay twice if the direct result is a product.

Might be something this kind of patents expires after 20 years, that kind after 5 (to give those guys a chance but ...) would be a solution.

Some patents are simply ridiculous though, that is true but I am not opposed to patents either. To implement something might cost quite a lot and doing away with patents could result in no-one sharing *any* idea with anybody else anymore.

Quantum Computers vs. Perpetual Motion

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a simple solution that should have been
in place before things got out of hand...

The US Patent Office recieved so many applications
regarding perpetual motion 'machines' that they
put a rule into effect stating that all such
applications must include a working model.

I think that should apply for ALL patent applications.
Perhaps a model need not be included, but a working
model must exist somewhere. How's that sound?

--

Utterly missing the point

[Doug Merritt]

Most of the first responses are utterly missing the point. No one has attempted to patent an as-yet-nonexistent quantum computer, so arguing that they shouldn't do so is ludicrous. What has been patented is a number of little gadgets that do in fact work, but would only be a part of a quantum computer.

Another important point is that these components might be useful in some other invention long before a full fledged quantum computer is created.

Whether hardware patents should exist in the first place really is an utterly different issue. There must be hundreds of new patents issued every day, including design patents for new car body styles, but I don't hear people screaming of the injustice of it all every time GM cranks out yet another SUV.

Lastly, this article, and its posting on Slashdot, disappoints me for a different reason: some days ago I offered a story on a small breakthrough in quantum computing that is featured in the current issue of Nature [nature.com] -- a working externally controlled quantum bit.

But Slashdot prefers to run something cynical. I didn't see Paul Guinnessy interview the NEC researchers who made this latest breakthrough to see whether they thought that quantum computers were more than 20 years away or not.

I'd be surprised if someone didn't have at least a limited quantum computer in only 5-10 years, myself -- I'm a technology optimist.

Re:Huh huh, you said patent

[spot]

The entire idea of patents needs to be thrown out, and replaced with something that protects inventors...

You are only half right. The patent system should be thrown out, period. I would be willing to compromise and continue to protect drugs since it's not clear how that industry would work without them.

invention has its own rewards (including financial) without a ridiculous legal structure and buearacracy to support it.

information is free.
the only question is:

Sheesh...

[Bilbo]

On the one end, we've got people trying to take out patents on technology that has already been around for years. On the other end, we've got patents about to expire on devices that haven't even been built yet.

One might get the idea that patents are becoming less and less applicable in this day and age... ;-)

patents should not be possible yet

[bug]

First of all, IANAL.

Except for patents on the building blocks of quantum computing (which is where the current state of technology is, just trying to get a couple of qbits to do *something*), I don't believe that patents should be possible here. One of the fundamental requirements for a patent is that the device actually works. We are obviously not there yet. To my knowledge, the only thing that we have right now are simulators of quantum computers on top of standard computers. I'd have to think that such *extremely* preliminary research results should not be patentable. Comments?

Re:Patenting the Holodeck

[wergild]

this quickly turns into a domain name buy up situation, where people start buying up as many patents as they can for products that don't exist yet. soon everything is bought up and everthing new is infringing on somebodies patent. crazy. lets hope it doesn't come to anything near this.

Huh huh, you said patent

[dclydew]

Here's a perfect example of what's wrong with the way patents work....

First, we have a company attempting to patent P3P, and possibly suceeding....

Now we have these scientests patenting parts and pieces of things, with no whole product. How silly.... Why would someone patent part of a solution, esp. when the solution is gonna be very hard and quite possibly take a very long time. Not smart.

The entire idea of patents needs to be thrown out, and replaced with something that protects inventors... but doesn't result in silly issues like these beautiful examples. Patenting software should just be tossed out... let them copyright it or better yet GPL it. Parts of inventions should be tossed out... if you don't have something real, you shouldn't have a patent....

No doubt, none of this will happen (at least for awhile). Companies see patents as a way of protecting their interests, as well as their pocketbooks. Long live their deities, Almighty Dollar, Euro, and all the rest...

How much ya wanna bet one of those patents is...

[Jerf]

How much ya wanna bet one of those patents have granted exclusive rights to use quantum mechanics in a computer? Not necessarily in so many words, but who knows WHAT could be gotten past the patent office as it stands now? Heck, word things right, and the entire UNIVERSE might be in patent violation (for performing some quantum "calculation" as a routine part of existance).

That would tend to make enforcement sort of difficult.

Patents Shmatents

[SiliconProphet]

Who cares if patents on these quantum computers expire before they get built? Hell, that's not the worst of it. There's a small but finite probability that the WARRANTY will expire before the thing is built.

Re:Patenting the Holodeck

[AlefNull]

I think it is already going on... Remember MP3 and the Electronic-Music-Transfer Patent?

I live next to a guy who thinks up stuff, patents it, then waits for a company to call him and ask if they can build it and send him $

He makes a pretty good living just licencing his patents.

Re:Why not Einstein's face?

[rking]

Einstein's work was fundamental in the development of quantum theory. He didn't "like" the Copenhagen interpretation, that's hardly the same as objecting to anything relating to quanta.

Patenting the Holodeck

[messman]

It is weird that someone can patent an algorithm
for a type of computer that does not exist and
it may never exist.
I guess every gadget in sci-fi books and films
is patentable too. Is the algorithm used in
Star Trek's holodeck patented yet?

Defensive patenting.

[Claudius]

Even if the patent expires it still has value in terms of defining prior art, if I'm not mistaken. In 25 years when someone builds a machine to implement Shor's algorithm and then they try to patent both the machine and the idea, then one can point to the original patent and say, "Prior art. You may only patent your machine, but someone else may implement the same algorithm." It's unfortunate that published journal articles containing the algorithms do not seem to suffice for defining prior art, as has been discussed numerous times on /.

Given a world with numerous patents applied for (and received) for preexisting technology and algorithms, using the patent office defensively in this manner doesn't seem to me to be as bad as the rest of the patent abuse. It just seems like a bit of wasted time on the part of the researchers is all.