Slashdot Mirror
The Death of Nearly All Software Patents?
An anonymous reader writes "The Patent and Trademark Office has now made clear that its newly developed position on patentable subject matter will invalidate many and perhaps most software patents, including pioneering patent claims to such innovators as Google, Inc. In a series of cases including In re Nuijten, In re Comiskey and In re Bilski, the Patent and Trademark Office has argued in favor of imposing new restrictions on the scope of patentable subject matter set forth by Congress in article 101 of the Patent Act. In the most recent of these three — the currently pending en banc Bilski appeal — the Office takes the position that process inventions generally are unpatentable unless they 'result in a physical transformation of an article' or are 'tied to a particular machine.'"
Invalidation of software patents was patented by me back in 2003.
Sounds like the machine that these patents are going to be tied to is the Titanic.
Someone should jump the gun and patent the idea that software cannot be patented. Then sue the trademark office for patent infringement.
They should patent it.
This calls for a Kermit full-waving "YAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!"
suddenoutbreakofcommonsense, but holyfreakingshit conveys my feelings better.
I haven't finished reading TFA yet, but this seems huge if it pans out — not only would software patents be invalidated, but essentially all "business process" patents would get tossed out as well.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
I agree with you but now I'll have to find a new sig! Damn!
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
And millions of patent troll voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced...
"Ah, Mr. Lord Apathy, sir? There's this big guy in flowing white robes in the waiting room. He's got thunderbolts sticking out at odd angles and he has some sort of weird glowing mist around him. He wants to talk to you and is muttering something about 'prior art'.
Should I let him in?"
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
...is for companies to employ a "physical object" provision in their patent filings. Google's PageRank patent, for example, may change from:
"A computer implemented method of scoring a plurality of linked documents"
to:
"A computer implemented method of scoring a plurality of linked documents with possible applications as a shower curtain"
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
> By the way my patent on the biological reproductive process in humans will go into affect today.
> So all you with kids prepare to cough up.
Well, you're on /. so nobody will pay you a dime, unless you've also patented the stimulation of self genital organs with one's hand.
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
I love a good mystery (and polls). So, is it the PTO saying:
a) "Cap'n she can't take much more!" (Approaching total functional failure)
b) "Go ahead, make my day." (I ain't takin' no more sh*t from you)
c) "Do you want to live forever?" (What the hell, got nothing to lose at this point.)
d) "ZOMG! pwnies!" (This acid trip is soooo righteous, man!)
The scariest part about it is, as a government office/function/bureau, the most likely answer is:
e) All of the above (Hi, my name is Sybil.)
The patent didn't effect me at all...
Another universe-destroying causality violation narrowly avoided...
Whew!
Software is a mixture of maths, art, sweat and donuts.
You can also add coffee/beer flavouring depending on your tastes.
Is this related to the Moe-Shemp theorem?
Shame on us all for thinking that Porn on the Internet would have no valid use.
"Whats that you're looking at honey?"
"Oh nothing, I'm just researching prior art on a patent I saw today".
Did anyone else read that as the Curly Howard correspondence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curly_Howard nyuk-nyuk-nyuk!
Flatly incorrect? We might even say... Patently incorrect.