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
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.
Did this patent decision also make it easier for them to call an invention +5 insightful?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
This is a huge step in the right direction
IsNot (patent pending)!!!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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.
The test-case in the article was completely uninteresting to most of us. It was a further comment in the ruling that is "the routine addition of modern electronics to an otherwise unpatentable invention"
What this really is saying is...
If an idea isn't patentable on it's own, then simply doing it with a computer isn't enough to make it patentable.
So if an idea such as "Tell something to somebody using piglatin" isn't patentable, then "Tell something to somebody using piglatin on a computer" or "Tell something to somebody using piglatin on a PDA" is not patentable either.
It could really limit the "dumb" patents.
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
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.
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
Hold it hold it hold it...
The latest ruling came in a case arising from a patent application by Stephen Comiskey, a lawyer who wanted to create a system for "mandatory arbitration involving legal documents," such as wills or contracts. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied Mr. Comiskey's patent application, as did the agency's board of appeals. Mr. Comiskey took his appeal to court.
Did this guy try to patent lawsuits?
Wow. That takes huge brass ones.
Frankly, I wonder if Mr. Comiskey shouldn't be more worried about his patent being invalidated by the huge body of prior art on Slashdot, every time a patent subject comes up and some bright bulb attempts to create a joke metapatent or something.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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.