Slashdot Mirror
PTO Eliminates "Technological Arts" Requirement
MdntToker writes to tell us that the Patent Board has issued an opinion which removes the existing procedure of rejecting patents under 35 U.S.C. 101 as outside of the "technological arts". From the article: "Our determination is that there is currently no judicially recognized separate "technological arts" test to determine patent eligible subject matter under 101. We decline to create one. Therefore, it is apparent that the examiner's rejection can not be sustained."
I do not know how big a deal this really is. I am sure in software or business method arts there might be more of an issue at hand, but I do not think 35 USC 101 is a highly used rejection method within the office. I would also be surprised if this stood up outside the Board of Patent Appeals and Interference (BPAI). I believe this should be tasked to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) since it almost sounds like the BPAI is trying to limit the USC.
I do not have numbers, but I am willing to take a guess the number of Business Method patents allowed to date is quite low. It is something that I believe should be more contested by the general public then the idea of software patents. I mean at least I'll see the end of a Patent term in my lifetime, but that same code that gets copyrighted won't be touchable until after a great many of us are long gone.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Reading the article, I'm made aware of two things: 1) I lack the training to be able to argue about this properly 2) I would like to know why exactly "a 'method of compensating a manager' that involved several steps of calculating a proper compensation based on performance criteria and then transferring payment to the manager" is not an abstract idea? What exactly does constitute an abstract idea? This sounds like a particular application of mathematical and economic principles, which I wouldn't have thought patentable at all. Anybody have a link to some reference materials that might help with these questions, without requiriring several years obtaining a law degree?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
...that will break the US Patent Office's back. We're due for patent reform. It has become such a joke that just about any new technology or idea is already patented in some respect. And if it isn't already patented, someone out there can make a case showing their patent covers the new technology and they are due money in return for fair use. There has to be a limit. Enough is enough.
Hrmm, Though honestly I don't see removing a restriction the department isn't able to define or legally defend as a big deal, recent trends are worrysome. I can see a future where companies pay regular fees to some cartel for protection from patent related lawsuits. At first there will be numerous small cartels kicking around, fighting each other for business, suing each others 'clients', over time the biggest bankroll will prevail and a patent protection fee will become a regular part of doing business.
paul reinheimer
This seems so ridiculous, that I wonder whether this is was purposefully done to force people to reform patent laws. Sometimes you need to utterly break something before people will notice that it was broken to start with. This is the most benign interpretation I can see as otherwise, it seems to be lacking in sense.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
Funny. As the Patent Board itself, I'd have thought that was part of their job. Maybe not.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
Point well made. Is it possible there are sane people working within the patent office with the muscle to push the existing regulations to an irrational and unsupportable conclusion? It may be there are those in the patent office who know how deeply flawed it is and are working to make the flaw(s) obvious to the public, the courts and the government.
This makes me chuckle mostly because I saw Harvey Birdman last night. I don't know if it was a repeat or not, but the episode was basically one of those "Welcome to Company X" promotional training videos. "How to do your job" "Why we're here" "Company History" all that.
Every time they showed Sebben he had an ever larger pile of money until at the very end of it he was neck deep in cash with swimsuited women on pool floats.
And for those of you that think Geeks and Animation can not possibly be interrelated and have never seen Harvey Birdman, the joke behind the series is he's a lawyer willing to take on the case of the "little" `Toon.
"Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
This decision is quite funny. A couple of months ago, Slashdot was running a story about a piece by Richard Stallman where he made the analogy with the works of Victor Hugo being covered by patents on literary plots. Then there were some posters who thought Dr. Stallman was making an absurd comparison, and that patents on literature would never happen.
Well, well...
Meanwhile, in Europe, we have chosen another road. After the victory on July 6, when the European Parliament rejected the software directive, we now have a chance to get one of our activists to win the title "European of the Year" in an open Internet poll organized by a big business magazine.
Please feel free to go to NoSoftwarePatents.com for instructions on how to vote, while you contemplate this latest madness by the US patent establishment.
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
Business is a useful art.
Agreed.
Economics is a science.
Agreed under reserve.
BUT: Granted above, then
A better argument against business method patents is that they do not serve the common good.
define "common good", since you stated Economics is a science, patents are an economic issue, and you are trying to bring forth arguments.