Slashdot Mirror
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.
Oh, good. We may yet have some hope.
the process of creating obfuscated reports about client billing practices intended to hide nickel-and-diming the customer to death. That would be a shot across the bow of lawyers, doctors, contractors and the banking industry in one fell swoop! Imagine the lobbying then to get rid of business method patents!
I enjoyed this bit of the exchanges the most:
**************
MR. STEWART: Well, first of all the only ruling that we're -- backtrack a bit,
to say, we oppose, sir, in this case because we recognize that there are
difficult problems out there in terms of patentability of software innovations
and medical diagnostics.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: You thought we -- you thought we would mess it up.
MR. STEWART: I didn't think --
(Laughter.)
MR. STEWART: We didn't think the Court would mess it up. We thought that this
case would provide an unsuitable vehicle for resolving the hard questions
because the case doesn't involve computer software or medical diagnostic
techniques, and therefore, we thought the Court would arrive at the position
that I think, at least some members are feeling that you have arrived at, that
you will decide this case, and most of the hard questions remain unresolved.
And, frankly, we think that's true.
*******************
Can someone explain to me:
1. Why the govt. does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents, now
that a golden opportunity has been presented?
2. Why is it the job of the govt. deputy solicitor to uphold the political
interests of the US of A rather than the legality of the issue at hand? (there
is an opinion here that software patents help the USA in World Trade.... which
seems very dubious to me at any rate).
3. How is it technically feasible, if at all, to make a ruling on the Business
Methods case without influencing whether software can or cannot be patented?
I think the govt. (read deputy solicitor) seems very worried that many lawyers
and patent powerhouses would come crashing down as a result of this ruling.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Regardless of whether they're "in the tank", I've noticed that this court tends to ask the most skeptical questions of the side they are considering ruling in favor of, at least when reported in the "anti-patent" media like Slashdot. It's more that they're trying to pin down the scope of their ruling rather than actually skeptical of the proposed arguments. Sometimes I think part of it is a cruel sense of humor toward the lawyers arguing before the court.
We are the 198 proof..
Jefferson called the Supreme Court a bunch of Oligarchs.
9 Old Men that run the country.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Even if you had a business method patent the chances are you'd still be defenceless in front of gigantic corporations who have the resources to just kick your arse up and down the legal system until you ran out of money.
They'll copy your model anyways, if you're small, you can't afford that many business patents (getting a patent is expensive, and litigating patents is also expensive and will put you out of business, unless you are successful against corporate army of lawyers).
Patents nowadays are very much for lawyers and large corporations BY lawyers and large corporations. They provide very little / no effective protection to the little guy.
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).
Seriously, his references includes a less than obscure radio broadcast that many older people might recognize over a modern day cartoon that they won't recognize? Seriously? When 9 individuals comment and 1 brings a reference in that a number of older people would recognize do you always behave like a twit?
What are you "The Second Horseman of Jumped the Shark" or perhaps "The Second Horseman rode by Perez Hilton"? Seriously, realize that you are not always going to be the demographic some comments are aimed at and ...... get the hell off my lawn.
When talking of references, whenever anyone says "Professor Farnsworth" I think of the inventor of TV, not the funny cartoon character. But anyone who thinks different from you is weird and wrong, eh?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
You are correct, and most courts act this way on difficult questions. The judges read the briefs and the trial transcripts (or have their clerks read them, really), figure out what they think the answer should be, then go into oral argument usually looking to solidify the position they've decided upon. Often this takes the form of, as you said, hammering on the side they favor to flesh out whatever theory they're currently working out in their heads. You'd be surprised, a lot of answers that seem "bad" have a nugget of a good legal theory, or at least something that brings parts of the theory together.
Of course, harassing attorneys with questions you know they can't answer sufficiently or forcing them to admit to something that makes them uncomfortable is also fun.
I'm not joking guys. We really planned on making our money on patenting our business model. We figured the big corporate bastards have made it impossible for tiny businesses like ours to make money and stay in business any other way so we'd patent our business model to protect ourselves from the giant behemoths. What will happen if you can't patent a business model is the behemoths who were in the same niche but slightly less profitable will look over and see you making money hand over fist and decide to copy your homework. What can you do? You're tiny. You're toast! But wait! I have a business model patent! You have to *buy* me! That means I get one last pay-check before you cut me loose!
They take that away and now we're defenseless in front of gigantic corporations who have the resources to just wholesale copy our model.
And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable? Just like all patenting has come down to. Any idiot realises that patenting was never created to benefit "the small players." Really, conspiracy aside, but how much influence does small businesses contra large businesses have on politics and politicians? Do you think there is one single top politician who doesn't own stock in one or many large corporations? And it doesn't have to be a plot or a cartel, you can be a very honest politician but when that opportunity comes along the temptation to make a few extra hundred thousand can become too much. Also it does help if you can pretend you're doing it for "the small players."
I am the lawn!
My read is that the justices seem to be ok with software patents in principle but are leery of business method patents that are not tied to a device or that do not incorporate some form of technology.
They seemed to struggle with how much of a "machine" needs to be added to an abstract business method before it becomes patentable subject matter.
In other news, Roberts appears to be confused about the difference between patentable subject matter and obviousness.
Mike Borella http://www.borella.net/mike
On the concept of "blow-by-blow coverage."
Expect to be hearing from my lawyer.
I know what you mean. My lawyer is a complete whore too.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
There are some justices who are clearly in the tank for big business patents (e.x. Clarence Thomas/Monsanto food patents), and I'm sure the other ones can be bought.
Do you have any evidence at all to suggest any justice of the Supreme Court is taking a bribe? Because that would be the biggest legal news in years.
What are you saying, because he doesn't watch TV that he's some kind of out-of-touch weirdo freak?
No, when Scalia says things like "factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached" and argues that torture is not punishment and therefore not forbidden by the 8th amendment, THAT's when I say that he's some kind of out-of-touch weirdo freak.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
How, exactly, is Justice Thomas "in the tank" for big business, and how, exactly, can "other ones ... be bought"? There are of course the all-important campaign contributions. No, wait, federal judges are appointed for life. Scratch that. Well, Big Biz could lobby Congress to reduce their pay if they don't stay in line. Except that would be patently unconstitutional under Article III. But still, they need to kiss the right behinds to climb the ladder. Except they're already on the Supreme Court, so there's really nowhere to go. So are you suggesting that Monsanto and other big business interests outright bribe certain justices? Well now, I'm interested in what evidence you have to support this theory, because we have here the makings of one of the biggest scandals we've ever seen. Also, we have some pretty stupid justices who would jeapordize their careers and legacies for the sake of whatever bribe the baddies are willing to offer.
I often disagree with Supreme Court justices, but for better or worse, it's hard for me to find a reason for them deciding the way they do except they really believe that's the way things ought to be. Our clever little Constitution did a pretty good job of removing all other incentives. Now, they may be cozy with the interests they've sided with through the years, because we all love to be buddies with like-minded people, but nobody owns them. If Justice Thomas decided he wanted to put the smack down on Monsanto, there's nothing Monsanto could do to stop him.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
There was one I found very interesting, from someone who was apparently present
"Oh you woulda loved where that sht was going. After several places in this part of the discussion there was a noticable shift in the audience as the ramifications of the fact that at least 2 justices were, from the mannerisms they were definitely using, and exasperation they were expressing, pretty fin pissed about software. And when I say "pretty fin pissed" well, you're just going to have to trust me if you weren't there. Some of the other justices on the other hand were just chillin in their chair, all bouncing around n stuff, not engaged hardly what so ever."
So long as it "Promotes the progress of Science and useful Arts", to which, I will respond that it largely doesn't these days the way it's being done.
The Supreme Court has traditionally interpreted preambles like "promote the general Welfare" and "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" as illustrative and not limitative, much like the list of purposes in the fair use statute (17 USC 107), and deferred to the Congress on their interpretation. Or at least that's the impression I got from the Court's opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft.
Scalia didn’t really ever say: “Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.”
What Scalia did say was:
“There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.”
Now that might be objectionable, but it is likely factual (“no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice”) and what is worse, that he stated fact or that the majority agreed?
I often disagree with Supreme Court justices, but for better or worse, it's hard for me to find a reason for them deciding the way they do except they really believe that's the way things ought to be.
That's a big part of the problem. They aren't there to decide if that's the way things ought to be, they are there to determine if the federal government has the constitutional authority to act on an issue. That's all.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I can't speak for this case but one week before issuing a ruling in Eldred v Ashcroft, Thomas accepted a seven figure deal with HarperCollins to publish his memoirs. HarperCollins is owned by News Corp which submitted an Amicus Curie brief in that very case. Oddly enough, Thomas ruled in News Corp's favor.
Most of the other justices have their memoirs published by independent academic institutions such as Harvard University Press but Thomas saw fit to sign a deal with a huge corporation just days before issuing a landmark ruling in their favor. Perhaps Thomas did it because HarperCollins was offering an order of magnitude more than his colleagues were getting for their memoirs, but that just screams of corruption to me.
This happened almost seven years ago. It seems the articles have faded from the internet. All I can find on it now is this Slashdot thread. I read the article it references back in 2003 and another one from Fox (yes Fox!) which said basically the same thing. Even though that thread was written in 2003 it is worth noting Thomas's memoirs were in fact published by Harper in 2007.