Slashdot Mirror
"Bilski" Case May End Business Method Patents
hey sends us to a blog at NYTimes outlining the upcoming appeal of the case known as "re Bilski," which could spell the end of patents on methods of doing business later this year. One patent expert is quoted: "I think this is the unraveling of business method patents... I think there is a process we are going to go through to get there and the Supreme Court is going to be the one that decides it." But another expert thinks the case is unlikely to bring down the whole class of patents: "Definitions of business method patents always end up being circular. You can't really ban something unless you can define it and no one is offering a definition we can use."
defining it be necessary for a patent?
Or it doesn't fit the current definition of what is patentable, therefore not patentable.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If you can't define it, you lose your patent. That would fix most of our issues, because people who have to define their patent in easy to understand terms will suddenly find that there is prior art, or that someone else already has it.
I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
Look it up for yourself, but Eli had a working assembly line and replaceable parts, both innovations ahead of their time. He was a genius and yet all we remember (are taught) is that he invented the cotton gin.
Before Eli Whitney, firearms were custom built by hand.
How about defining things explicitly authorized instead ? Here in Europe, one of the very strong arguments of patent opponents is the regulation stating that mathematical formulas are public domain by default, being discovered, not invented. And for most law makers, an algorithm is similar to a formula. The loophole that many European companies use is that they patent a "machine running an algorithm X", the machine being a computer. I am not aware of any case in Europe where a software company has been attacked over one of these bogus patents.
How about stating that a contract between entities/persons/agents is a work of literature and can be copyrighted but not patented ? What more is there in a "business method" than a set of contracts ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I think that what the parent is saying is that the idea of using the cash register is inherent in the cash register itself existing. Before someone has invented a cash register, the idea of using one for business does not exist. Once the cash register has been invented (and patented), the idea of using the cash register is not a separate idea that should be protected independent of the cash register. A novel new key layout might deserve some protection. The act of pressing differnt keys should not.
For Amazon, the back end solution that drives the 1-click process possibly deserves protection. The act of clicking a button to buy something does not.
How about this, very pragmatical definition:
1. if it's something that one or more humans must do, you can't patent it. (I.e., no patenting "you show the ticket to the doorman".)
2. if the same process could realistically be done by a finite and small number of humans, and your programs/modules/robots/whatever just automate a human's role there, you can't patent it. (I.e., no patenting "you input your ticket's number to the program.")
3. If a nearly identical process -- i.e., serves the same practical purpose and the essential steps are the same, or minor variations of the same step -- is already in use with humans or in any other form or medium, you can't slap a "in software" or "with computers" on it and patent the same bloody thing _again_.
The above, btw, comes from someone who actually likes patents as a general idea. I'm all for rewarding people who research new stuff, create new technologies, and/or invent new products. By all means, we need more of that stuff, and it's only fair to reward the people who invested massive money and manpower into researching it. In fact, at the risk of allienating a good chunk of slashdotters, I'm even for more of that in software. If that's what it takes to get more people into researching brand new stuff, I'm all for it.
I _am_ however, dismayed by the joke that most patents actually end up being. I think it's time to revert to the original idea of rewarding technological progress, and weed out the chaff that doesn't do anything towards that end. Starting with the rehashes of an existing technique, only with "in software" or "with a computer" slapped upon it.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Sort of, but you mistake the real reason for the prevalence of "legalese" - poor writing skills amongst lawyers (aside from "terms of art", see below). There is nothing about the practice of law which requires "legalese", or even makes its use a good idea.
In fact, contrary to what many believe, more words do not result in a more precise definition - they only create new opportunities for interpretations of the contract terms which may not have been intended by the parties to the contract at the time of formation.
The Plain English movement seeks to remedy these failings(see the writings of Bryan Garner among others). This "movement" attempts to equip attorneys with the writing skills necessary to write contracts which everyone can understand, especially laymen. Precision in drafting is essential to a well formulated contract - and the more people that can easily understand the meaning of such contracts, the more "solid" the contract is (less room for a mischievous interpretation).
The example you give is also fodder for laymen only (not to pick on you, I get your point but this is also important) - the intent of the parties is construed to ensure that they receive the benefit of the bargain. That is, in the hypo you offer, everyone would be aware that paying a reasonable (fair market value or about) price for a "wii in original packaging" entails that the wii is in working condition. No court in the U.S. would let you pull such a stunt.
Overly defining terms whose import should be readily apparent (if the contract was properly drafted) leads to contracts with unreadable sentences such as "no savings and loan holding company, directly or indirectly, or through one or more transactions, shall acquire control of an uninsured institution or retain, for more than one year after other than an insured institution or holding company thereof, the date any insured institution subsidiary becomes uninsured, control of such institution" [12 C.F.R. section 584.4(b)]. Although that is a statute and not from a contract, the same principles apply.
I have seen estimates that the poor quality of writing (both in statutes and contracts) uses up a substantial amount of an attorney's time (not because they are unfamiliar with the law or unskilled, but because its awful english). Remember, the law is written in english for english speakers (in the U.S., of course), it is not some special dialect (although it does have many "terms of art" which are properly used where the concepts they represent are irreducible - such as "personal jurisdiction", which may be meaningless to non-lawyers, but cannot be reworded really).
Cheers
The problem with the mentality that you shouldn't get paid next year for the work you did this year is that it can take *years* of research to develop something. I was just reading a write-up posted on the wall in my University's Physics building today, about how it took Edison and his assistants 18 *years* of labor every day to perfect the Alkaline Battery. When he started, while the basic concept of a battery had been around for awhile, he had to do a ton of basic materials science / chemistry research, then further engineering efforts once he found suitable materials, to find the best physical design for the battery. 18 years. Granted, not every 'invention' takes 18 years, but you need to keep in mind, when discussing patents, that the patent system needs to take into account that it could take a very long time to recoup the investment someone makes in an invention.
Another example of this is pharmaceutical patents. It can take years of research to develop a candidate for a new drug, then years of safety and efficacy testing before it receives FDA approval. All that makes it *very* expensive to bring a new drug to market. I think we can all see that, at least some drugs, have improved human health greatly, and so we should give the companies doing that R&D a chance to make back their money, and it very well might take years to make back the money.
I mean, if you did 10 or 18 years of R&D to create a new invention, it might easily take you 20 or 30 years to make back the money you invested in that (especially when you consider that, after spending all that time/money on R&D, you know have to spend a ton more money for manufacturing/distribution/marketting, and it just might take a few years for your product to be 'accepted' in the marketplace to the point where it begins to make any money at all.