US Supreme Court Skeptical of Business Method Patents

Trepidity writes "The US Supreme Court held oral argument Monday in Bilski, a business-methods patent case that might also have important implications for software patents (We have previously discussed the case several times). The tone of the argument appears to be good news, as the justices were very skeptical of the broad patentability claims. They even brought up a parade of absurd hypothetical patents quite similar to the ones Slashdotters tend to mention in these kinds of debates. Roberts surmised that 'buy low, sell high' might be a patentable business method, Sotomayor wondered if speed-dating could be patentable, Breyer questioned whether a professor could patent a lesson plan that kept his students from falling asleep, and Scalia brought up the old-time radio soap opera Lorenzo Jones, featuring a hare-brained inventor with delusions of getting rich." Patently O has good blow-by-blow coverage of the day's proceedings. Official argument transcripts will be up soon, they say.

Comments

good background info

[volt4ire]

A good source of background info for this case is provided in epside 1 of the Software Freedom Law Center's podcast http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2008/nov/25/0x01/ It puts the case in perspective as to what software patents would be thrown-out under even the most optimistic Bilski rulings (ie: not ending all software patents, as we'd like to see).

Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"

[jcarkeys]

It's kinda clear, actually. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
If Congress wants to regulate patents in a way that helps big business, then they can.

Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"

[nomadic]

I don't really see how it's that "big" a claim. I'm not like saying the earth is flat or all our politicians were replaced with aliens. Those would be pretty big claims. But anyway:
"Alan Gura, the Alexandria, Va., lawyer who masterminded the challenge to the D.C. handgun ban, says the NRA has joined him "ever so grudgingly" only in recent weeks, after years of trying to wreck the litigation and avoid a Second Amendment showdown. At earlier stages, the NRA sought to consolidate its own case, which challenged the D.C. law on a "kitchen sink" array of rationales, with Gura's. In a 2003 filing, Gura called the NRA case "sham litigation" aimed at muddying his Second Amendment claim."

Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"

[gd2shoe]

You're equating a passage that limits federal power with one that grants federal power. That is a dangerous slope, particularly in light of the ninth and tenth amendments.

Besides, the purpose of those so-called preambles are different, as evidenced by the language used.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The binding statement here is the right of "the People" to bear arms. The preamble can easily be read as a rationale. Note which part stands on it's own as a complete sentence (or more precisely, a complete thought).

The Congress shall have power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

This, which you have termed a preamble, is the actual statement. It stands on its own as a complete sentence, and has the copyright portion tacked onto it. Promoting the progress of Science and useful Arts IS THE ENUMERATED POWER. The ability to grant copyrights and patents is a constitutional vehicle granted to them to carry out their responsibility.

Otherwise it would have been phrased:

The Congress shall have power... to secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries, promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts.

Or:

The promotion of the Progress of Science and useful Arts being necessary for the general welfare, the Congress shall have power to secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Further note that none of the other powers enumerated in the section contain rationale. If you insist on treating the passage as an explanatory preamble, you must wonder why the framers of the Constitution felt that that one required it. The others didn't.