"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."

Comments

Re:^_^

[Critical Facilities]

They use all this legal-speak to define their patent, in order to make them seem novel and inventive.
What the hell are you talking about? You obviously have no experience in creating/drafting patents. Take, for example, the patent I hold entitled "Manually actuated pressure initiation of uni-phonetic communication" which claims benefit under provision F.U.D. 34-19.2 of Provisional Application License 453/21.2532 filed in April 1984 which very clearly states:

This invention relates to a method of interfacing between an operator and a portable peripheral of an electronic calculation and computation machine (heretofore referred to as a "computer") for the purposes of allowing a methodology wherefore force may be applied at incremental levels from the operators singular or multiple digits to individually assigned and actuated surface switches (heretofore referred to as "keys") with the designed intent being to allow for individual transference of intended characters occurring in the alphabet of said language/verbiage (referred to in Section 12-4.987) in the order of the operator's determination with the sole intent of creating collections of said characters for the purposes of "spelling" and relating notions, ideas, and phrases (henceforth referred to as "words").

See? How simple is that? I mean, come on, it's not like I went out of my way to make that complicated, you must not understand this type of thing very well.

Re:How about

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU's patentability rules already disallow business model patents. To quote the relevant parts:

(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:

...

(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

Circular definition or not, the system has held up pretty well since it was introduced in 1973, most (all?) member states already had similar restrictions before the rules were unified.

Re:Only business patents?

[Gutboy]

But that is the way it is supposed to work. You can patent the device that predicts heart attacks, but you can't stop people from making other devices that predict heart attacks if they use a different method than yours. The idea "lets predict heart attacks" is not patentable, the machine that does it is.

How about this definition:

[Moraelin]

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.