Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canada's Federal Court of Appeal To Rule On Business Methods

Posted by Soulskill on from the must-need-a-distraction-from-the-maple-leafs dept.

ciaran_o_riordan writes "After last month's unfortunate ruling by Canada's Federal Court that Amazon's 1-click shopping idea could be patented, the Commissioner of Patents and the Attorney General of Canada have filed notice (PDF) to Amazon.com, Inc. (respondent) that an 'appeal will be heard by the [Federal Court of Appeal] at a time and place fixed by the Judicial Administrator,' probably Ottawa. This case, called Canada's Bilski, has been in the works since Amazon filed their patent application all the way back in 1998. Just like Bilski, the object of this case is what subject matter is and isn't patentable — a question which will create crucial case law, making participation in this case important. Anyone looking for more background, particularly those interested in helping to prepare an amicus brief for this case, is welcome at ESP's wiki page."

11 of 34 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Americans. You think the USA is bad? by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oh, it's not that bad. We have better donuts up here. And better maple syrup.

    --
    Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
  2. It's just so broken... by PerformanceDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Software and business methods should not be patentable - if for no other reason that most software patents are written by lawyers and therefore incomprehensible. Time and time again we are required in software contracts to warrant that we do not infringe on third party rights including patents. It is an impossible warranty to give as it is impossible to know if you do. There are so many software patents granted in so many esoteric minute little areas that for any remotely complex software you could spend a lifetime searching and trying to figure out if you did infringe on someone's patent. And the odds are very high that somehow you do. So you sign the contract knowing full well that you most likely are in breach, but the odds of you getting sued are sufficiently low to take the risk. How software and business method patents could possibly encourage innovation is beyond me.

    --
    Meus subcriptio est nocens Latin quoniam bardus populus reputo is sanus callidus
    1. Re:It's just so broken... by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Informative
      Especially not patents on stuff that's an inevitable result.

      1. IF the person is not logged in, then they have to log in to pay for something/

      2. IF the person is logged in, if they don't have payment info on hand, request it.

      3 IF the person is logged in and their payment info is on hand, just let them buy it.

      There's no "creativity" in what's an obvious step - and actually easier to implement than a shopping cart.

      -- Barbie

    2. Re:It's just so broken... by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, you are wrong, it encourages innovation in many ways, just think about how the lawyers are innovative finding new stuff to patent.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    3. Re:It's just so broken... by VanGarrett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It encourages innovation by, in a legal sense, forcing developers to come up with new ways to accomplish given tasks.

      Granted, this theory, while good, falls short of the goal. There may be a thousand different routes you can take to get to Disneyland from your house, but only one of them will be the fastest, and most of them will be ridiculous. If lawyers and law makers understood this sort of logic, then we'd be in a much better place, now.

      --
      Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
    4. Re:It's just so broken... by WidgetGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Software and business methods should not be patentable - if for no other reason that most software patents are written by lawyers and therefore incomprehensible.

      Almost all patents are written by (patent) lawyers. I do know one guy who received two "method" patents and wrote each one himself. But, that's the exception to the rule. Patents appear to be incomprehensible by design. Call it job security for patent lawyers. If we apply your criteria to all patents, we'd have very few patents (and fewer patent lawyers). Good luck with that.

      Time and time again we are required in software contracts to warrant that we do not infringe on third party rights including patents. It is an impossible warranty to give as it is impossible to know if you do. There are so many software patents granted in so many esoteric minute little areas that for any remotely complex software you could spend a lifetime searching and trying to figure out if you did infringe on someone's patent. And the odds are very high that somehow you do. So you sign the contract knowing full well that you most likely are in breach, but the odds of you getting sued are sufficiently low to take the risk.

      The courts are fully aware of how it would be impossible for any individual to have complete knowledge of all patents that exist in his or her area of expertise. It's highly unlikely a suit would be brought against you for that reason alone. Then there is also the fact that the plaintiff (whomever asked you to sign that type of document) probably would not win unless they could prove you did, in fact, know about the particular patent(s) they are being sued for infringing when you signed that document.

      How software and business method patents could possibly encourage innovation is beyond me.

      They encourage innovation for the same reason Industrial Age patents encouraged innovation: they give the "ingenious little guy/company" very powerful protection from greedy people (or bigger companies) with a lot of money who've never had an original idea in their lives. I suggest you study (Wikipedia articles) the history of patents in the development of telephony or radio and TV broadcasting. It would be compelling fiction -- if it were fiction.

      The problem is not that the Patent Act is too broadly written. It was intentionally too broadly written. Better to have a bad patent issued from time to time than to reject a good patent (do that enough times and patents become meaningless). The PTO appeals process and, if necessary, the Federal courts are there to "sort things out" in the end.

      The USPTO is a conservative institution by design. It is always difficult for these types of institutions to keep up with fundamental changes in society and the economy. The transition from the Agricultural Age to the Industrial Age (took about 300 years) and from the Industrial Age to the Information Age (took about 30 years) were (and continue to be) all difficult transitions for the USPTO.

      Right now, the problem is not that software patents are being issued, it's that really, really bad software patents are being issued. This will only be fixed when Congress decides it's time to provide better training for current patent examiners and to hire more examiners with backgrounds in Information Age technologies.

      --
      One "Aw, Shit!" is worth 100 "Ata boys!"
  3. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Relax guys, it's only happened at the First Instance Court. These kinds of decisions need to be taken by the Supreme Court before having full effect. In time, it will get there and we will know the state of the Law, for now just be patient.

  4. What? Now one can patent ideas as as well? by bogaboga · · Score: 2, Funny

    "...After last month's unfortunate ruling by Canada's Federal Court that Amazon's 1-click shopping idea could be patented..."

    It's been my understanding that the only things that are patentable are 'methods' but not 'ideas'. So are we in the regime that supports the notion of patenting ideas?

    If that's the case, I better file a patent application for the idea of having the computer 'read my mind' then enable the typing of my thoughts. This can be useful in saving folks what has come to be known as carpal tunnel syndrome.

    How about that?

  5. Phelan: a change in the customer is sufficient by goldfndr · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Something enabling the typing of your thoughts would be patentable according to Phelan:

    Tangibility is not an issue. The “physical effect”, transformation or change of character resides in the customer manipulating their computer and creating an order. It matters not that the “goods” ordered are not physically changed.

    Per Phelan, you are changed.

    --
    Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
  6. Not a problem by east+coast · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Canadians have the situation in hand.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  7. why the editorial? by numbscholar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not trying to be a troll or anything, honestly I'm new to Slashdot, but why would they report a court ruling as "unfortunate"? I honestly don't know enough about the issue yet to have an informed opinion, but it seems the poster or Slashdot wants for me to have the preconception that this is not a good thing.

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.