Slashdot Mirror
Court Puts Further Limits on Software Patents
An anonymous reader writes "The Wall Street Journal is reporting on a recent court ruling that may severely limit the scope of both software and business model patents. The court found that 'The routine addition of modern electronics to an otherwise unpatentable invention' isn't enough to get over the 'non-obvious' hurdle that every patent is supposed to clear. This is a huge step in the right direction and one of the first admissions from the court system that perhaps software and business model patents have gone too far. 'In August, the Federal Circuit in essence raised the bar for proving willful infringement, a finding that allows a judge to triple a damage award. In April, the Supreme Court handed down a patent decision making it easier for trial-court judges to call an invention "obvious" and therefore ineligible for a patent.'"
If you RTFA, the litigation was over a business-process that was deemed to be more about thought than process, and therefore not covered.
Although many software patents might be obvious, and pass the Supreme Court test, there are no really good precedents - yet - that cover software patent obviousness, saving the ongoing one-click litigation.
Not as nice or as pertinent as some would like, but I'll take it.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
We had a competence transfer about patents and IP, and as the tutors were explaining what can be patented, the techies in the audience (me included) would exclaim, from time to time "what, you can patent that?" We were just so surprised that you don't need to come up with something original or complicated, not even the software algorithm. I had the impression as if we were almost encouraged to patent the most broad possible vaggueties - the word "idea" only barely applies.
I'm sure other companies do exactly the same.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Technically NTP's patents are not for sending wireless email... rather, the patents are more about the "push" technology that is used. In other words, sending email to wireless devices is OK - just don't use the methodology that NTP patented. Where RIM and possibly others have infringed is due to performance issues with alternate methodologies. In other, other words, the NTP patents actually do conver a competitive advantage over alternate methodologies.
Actually, they could go with a sessionless protocol (which they might) and that the server receives an announcement packet, which then gets "responded" to when email arrives. Then the originator responds with a new announcement packet when it's received the entire file, thus indicating receipt and kicking off the entire cycle again. That's far different than "push".... ;)
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
2144.04[R-1]III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY
In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent- mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.). While this case is a little outdated, they're saying that the process would occur manually and all the timer / solenoid combination is doing is automating the formerly manual process. This is expanded to include thought processes too. While it's probably good to have a more recent case back up a good decision made years ago, it won't change patent law any.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.