Supreme Court Weakens Patents

ajakk writes "The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, overturned the decades old test for determine whether a patent is obvious. The Court ruled that the Court had looked at obviousness in a "narrow, rigid manner." This should allow patents to be more easily invalidated because they are obvious."

Comments

Re:IANAL

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Patents can be re-examined at any time with this ruling in mind. This will apply to every flimsy patent issued because of a bad CAFC ruling made years ago. This is the first time SCOTUS has weighed in on this topic since the Graham v. Deere case that established the rules for Obviousness. By calling for more re-examinations (poor patent office might get overrun), these old patents can and should be overturned. The screaming you hear is the big pharma who are going to lose their butts on this. The people who are happy, well believe it or not, they are the software folks (and patent examiners, who will like being able to reject patents without nearly as much effort as before).

Also, people can use this case as precedent to have patents that they are being sued with overturned, showing that they do not have the strength to overcome obviousness over prior art. (Basically, SCOTUS just re-defined obviousness in prior art. Now that prior art has changed, patents can be overturned on prior art they previously were not able to be.)

Next step

[Mateo_LeFou]

Stop allowing patents on what is *obviously not patentable, e.g. mathematical algorithms and software

Re:Next step

[oliverthered]

algorithms and software (just a bunch of algorithms ) are just representations of a mental process.
As soon as you allow them to be patented you make thought itself against the law.

Re:Next Step

[Lockejaw]

Suppose Alice patents the FOO algorithm. If Bob wants to use it in a piece of software he's selling, he obviously needs a license from Alice to use it. But since "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" has been taken to include non-commercial use, what else can't Bob do? Can he implement it in free (gratis) software? Can he use the algorithm in code he writes, but doesn't distribute? Can he perform the algorithm himself? Can he be paid to do so?

Since, as a sibling post stated, an algorithm is just a thought process, it's not really something to which exclusive rights should be granted.

Most of the software patents we see these days don't play by the rules as it is. Either they don't do the full disclosure that is supposedly required (really, doesn't it seem odd that a product can be both patented and a trade secret?), are trivial or obvious combinations of existing things, have a large body of prior art, or some combination of the three. Software patents that do follow those rules are essentially patents on algorithms (i.e. sets of instructions on how to perform some task or calculation).

The proper domains for proprietary software are trade secret for closed source code and copyright for open source code.

Re:Next step

[Chris Burke]

Math is not patentable. Software is nothing but a computer-understandable representation of math. A software patent however does not involve such a computer-understandable representation, it merely covers the idea. The idea behind software is pure math. Therefore a software patent is a patent on math, and should not be granted.

That may seem circular, but math not being patentable is a matter of law. Not to mention a good idea, since math is the fundamental language of the universe, it is the language by which we describe all scientific progress. To patent math is to patent the foundation of science, and will cripple progress. Just like software patents are crippling progress.

Have you ever seen a patent on a math book? Of course not, math isn't patentable. Yet suddenly when you encode that math in a computer language, it is patentable? Hell, with a program like Maple the content of the math book could be "computer readable", so does Maple mean math textbooks can be patented?

Re:Next step

[Red Flayer]

That doesn't negate any /copyright/ restrictions (i.e. you can simply steal someone's software, it doesn't leagalize piracy), but for example, a sub-pixel rendering patent could not be used against a free (as in beer) piece of sub-pixel rendering software.

Hmm. The problem I see is that one can't copyright an algorithm, so by extension there would be no restriction on wholesale "theft" of software. So any patented software out there would be completely vulnerable to pirated copies under a different trademark.

Plenty of people see this as the best-case scenario, since "information wants to be free". However, in practice, this would mean that there is almost zero financial incentive to produce new innovative, software outside of the service revenue model.

I think it's tough to find a balance between "promoting the useful arts" and restricting innovation via patent lockdown, but allowing free-as-in-beer use of patented materials destroys the entire patent system for software, since there is almost no unit cost to redistribute software. Is annhiliating the patent system for software desirable? I don't know, but I do know that I don't wish to discuss it on Slashdot (been burnt one too many times).

Sorry to be so long-winded, but I feel that what you're advocating would result in the wholesale destruction of the patent system...

One last thing...

The idea is - if it can be created/distributed at such "minimal" effort that no cost is required, then it the patent is of questionable novelty.

So what you're saying is that anything produced digitally is not novel?

Re:Next step

[TooManyNames]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Algorithms are no more representations of a mental process than heat engines or ASIC chips. Algorithms do require a precise interpretation of mental processes, but then again so did every invention ever conceived. In fact, algorithms developed to leverage the way a computer works may have almost nothing to do with the corresponding mental process.

For example, take a simple algorithm which decides the next best move in a chess game... do you really think that the standard mental process is to recursively examine the next several moves and potential counter moves for a given board layout. Similarly, is the typical mental process for using language based off of some well-defined CFG?

Algorithms are designed according to the availability of several functional units not offered by the human brain. Software based off of mathematical algorithms exploit the availability of an ALU and/or FPU. Hardware might even be developed to accelerate frequent, specific tasks required by software (such as designing an accelerator to perform matrix multiplications) in which case the software is optimized according to the availability of such hardware.

The truth is that, despite some superficial similarities, both the underlying design and functionality of a brain and computer are quite different and serve different purposes. To argue that there is no difference in the way each is used (which is what you are saying when you claim that software really isn't any different from thought) is to ignore the very structure of a computer.

SCOTUS gets it - see this statement:

[boxless]

At the end of the full ruling is this little chestnut:

We build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around us new works based on instinct, simple logic, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and sometimes even genius. These advances, once part of our shared knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation starts once more. And as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts. See U. S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 8.

Here's an argument for ye

[Mateo_LeFou]

Over 90% of software innovations are incremental steps on the existing set of best practices and commonly-used abstractions. If this base is screwed up by a bunch of patents, they defeat their purpose and hamper, rather than encourage, innovation.

If you live in America, you won't have to go far for an example. If you live elsewhere, then go to America and then you won't have to go far for an example.

copyright

[zogger]

Software is typed up stuff, written in a language or languages, and as such, is more akin to written books or articles or say like musical scores, and should only be allowed copyright, not patents. Patents should be restricted to tangible products. In addition, the software industry itself has insisted and got granted immunity from normal consumer warranties, which is clearly evidence they don't see their own typed up stuff as a "normal product". It's *special*.

They shouldn't have it both ways when no other industry can claim that. If it is patentable, it should come with a minimum implied normal warranty (suitable for use, no glaring and or dangerous defects, etc). No warranty should mean no patent, copyright only.

I hope that is linear enough to answer your question.

Re:The problem is how we handle them.

[g2devi]

> The problem, in my opinion, with software patents isn't with the fact that they're software -- in my mind, software ought to
> be patented, ... -- but that they're typically of very poor quality, shoddily researched, and overbroad.

It's more fundamental than that. I understand that you're trying to find a middle ground, but there is none (at least none that is "obvious":-]). It's a

Here are four things to consider:

(1) How many people actually look at patent to come up with ideas? If no-one does, then how is it helping with innovation? What exactly is the purpose of software patents other than a way for lawyers and patent trolls to get paid for disrupting innovation?

(2) If I independently discover/reinvent the patent, then why should why should I have to pay someone else for the privilege of using *my* idea? Reinvention has nothing to do with obviousness. Sometimes the time is right for non-obvious inventions. Examples of this indepentent invention/rediscovery include quantum mechanics, light bulb, telephone, combustion engine, airplane, television, transistor, and integrated circuit. See http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-61065 42_ITM for a fuller description.

(3) Relating to (2), suppose you allow independent reinvention as an exception. What happens if I want to tell people about *my* idea for free? I can't (and may get sued if I do). Free speach and society loses.

(4) Software patents are supposed to protect "the little guy" but since big corps can afford to have millions of patents, it's almost certain that they have something that "the little guy" violates (or may potentially violate) and force "the little guy" to cross-license, enabling the big corps to "steal" (if you believe patents are IP) the idea. Even if "the little guy" doesn't violate any patents, it's possible for the big corps to drag the case out in court until "the little guy" is bankrupt (e.g. just look at how long SCO dragged the case out against another big corp), making it virtually impossible for "the little guy" to enforce the patent but very easy for big corps to freeze out competition.

So basically, even when you have legitimate innovation, software patents serve no good purpose and are harmful. If you have a legitimate innovation then trade secrets are a better alternative that doesn't mess with any of the above problems.

Software patents are a lot like DRM and both are like making a bed with an elastic sheet that's too small for the bed. It looks possible to have "perfect software patents" or "perfect DRM" or "to make the bed", and you may be able to tie down three of the sides, but as soon as you try to tied down the forth side either one of the other three sides come loose or the whole thing falls apart.

A Patent Lawyer's Perspective

[Arguendo]

I am a patent litigator (meaning I mostly kill patents; I don't create them), and this of course is big news in my practice today, and will be very helpful in several on-going cases.

Here's my take: the case allows lawyers to tell a story about the prior art that makes sense. Previously, the Federal Circuit had shut you down if you couldn't point out explicit prior art for every little detail of the patent that you wanted to invalidate. That's exactly what they did in the case under review. The defendant pointed out that all of the basic problems had been solved in other patents, but the Federal Circuit responded that they hadn't been solved with the intent of solving the particular problem the patent said it was trying to solve. Well, so what? We should be able to assume (and argue) that ordinary engineers have a little common sense and creativity in determining how to use previous inventions. We shouldn't have to show the courts that there was an exact road-map for an idiot to follow and arrive at the precise "invention" at issue. That's the big help in this case.

So from my point of view, here are the two big advances from KSR today:

• "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." (Page 17)
  This should be obvious, but it will help that the Supreme Court said it. It will be quoted a lot because it shows that we can assume that the ordinary engineer can make simple inferences and doesn't need his hand held.
• "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." (Also page 17.)
  This is the Supreme Court's long-winded way of boosting the "obvious to try" argument. The Federal Circuit has for a long time rejected the argument that it would have been "obvious to try," instead saying that it needs to be "obvious to do". (For example, it may be obvious to try to build a time machine, but that doesn't mean the invention of a time machine would be obvious.) But I read this opinion as saying that "obvious to try" goes a long way towards showing that it was "obvious to do". In other words, if it was obvious to try and the trying used predictable methods and yielded a predictable result, then the whole thing was likely obvious. So this will help as well.

Finally, it is going to be interesting to see how the PTO itself deals with this opinion. If an examiner comes back to you and says, "no I think this is obvious," it's very difficult to "prove" otherwise, especially early in a product's life cycle when you don't have market data to show how successful it might be, etc. At least under the previous test, the examiner would have to point out all the explicit references in the prior art. Now they apparently just have to point out the basic elements, and then say, "in their opinion," a person of ordinary skill and creativity would have been able use these elements to make the invention. How do you argue with that? "No, I don't think ordinary people are that creative"?

So, you fix one problem and possibly create another. The opinion shifts the debate to help prove obviousness, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem of what obviousness means. So it goes.