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.'"
There goes the One Click patent. And to think it was only good for a 10 year head start.
This move should also kill a whole bunch of the "... on the internet." patents off.
Thank you for using your common sense to defeat the enemies of innovation.
Three cheers for the independent judiciary.
What about the adding of old or futuristic electronics? Why is that not covered?
Professor X invents a Frammwizle. Patent Troll Y see that a Frammwizle can make many other past inventions more useful, and simply patents the use of the 2 together, just like is current dont with the Internet.
Since it's already happened, and this is meant to address that very situation, why should 'modern' be there at all?
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
This is most definitely not about software patents, it is about business method patents. This has no effect on software patents at all. It simply stops the patenting of mental processes that are vaguely assisted by technology. You can be certain that software patents - on designs, algorithms, procedures, whatever - are as strong before as after this ruling.
Am I the only one that finds it deeply ironic that this ruling came because an "inventor" (patent jargon for 'lawyer') tried to patent something that would affect other lawyers? The CAFC does not care a jot about engineers, programmers, designers. But it does really care about inventors, sorry, lawyers.
My blog
Aren't they nowadays being crushed by large companies with extensive sets of overbroad patents? I don't see how this would make things worse.
No patents without implementation! That's one essential reform.
So you'd deny Keith Henson his satellite launching whip patent - just because he can't afford to buy a 747, modify it to attach the tow cable, and do aerobatics with it until he gets a payload out of the atmosphere?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This is a reflection of the profession of a vast majority of slashdot people. In computer science particularly, patents have hindered, rather than fostered innovation; which is why computer scientists tend to be particularly dismissive of its virtues. Electrical Engineers are a little bit more sympathetic. Biotech Engineers (is there any such term) are far more supportive. Probably a reflection of the fixed costs involved in establishing a business in the respective fields.
Patents should go to whoever DOES it first, not whoever comes up with the idea for doing it first. Merely documenting a cool concept should not prevent others from trying it.