Supreme Court Limits Patents Based On Laws of Nature

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Limits Patents Based On Laws of Nature

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday March 21, 2012 @05:10AM from the there-goes-my-falling-off-a-bridge-patent dept.

New submitter sed quid in infernos writes "The Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion yesterday holding that 'to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, a patent must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words "apply it."' The Court invalidated a patent on the process of adjusting medication dosage based on the levels of specific metabolites in the patient's blood. The opinion sets forth a process for determining patent eligibility for patent claims that include a law of nature. The court wrote that the "additional features" that show an application of the law must "provide practical assurance that the [claimed] process is more than a drafting effort." This language suggests that the burden will be on the patentee to prove that its limitations are more than patent attorney tricks.'"

173 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Patent by SJHillman · 2012-03-21 05:12 · Score: 5, Funny

So I can't patent my method of not falling off the Earth through application of gravity?
1. Re:Patent by g0bshiTe · 2012-03-21 05:21 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You forgot something.
  
  Method of not falling off the Earth through application of gravity, apply it.
  3M, we don't make the patent, we make it better.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
2. Re:Patent by Jason+Levine · 2012-03-21 05:36 · Score: 2
  
  What if I add "using computers" or "using The Internet"? Can I apply for a patent for "Method of not falling off the Earth through the application of gravity and The Internet"?
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
3. Re:Patent by matrim99 · 2012-03-21 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  You can, but you need to add "while using a computer" or "while connected to the Internet" in order for the patent to be granted with minimal review.
  
  --
  Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
4. Re:Patent by osu-neko · 2012-03-21 05:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So I can't patent my method of not falling off the Earth through application of gravity?
  Alas, you can. This just means it won't hold up in court, not that you can't patent it, threaten other people, incur huge legal costs and tie things up for years making a nuisance of yourself until the money from your investors runs out, at which point you just declare bankruptcy, dissolve the corp that takes all the blame and walk away from the mess with the income you earned during the time.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
5. Re:Patent by hobarrera · 2012-03-21 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  I can image Microsoft or Motorola pateting this "...while using a mobile device".
6. Re:Patent by GameboyRMH · 2012-03-21 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Damn right, that was my first thought...method of exchanging gases by diffusion being the next best thing. Breathe and I'll sue!
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
7. Re:Patent by GameboyRMH · 2012-03-21 06:23 · Score: 2
  
  Method of not falling off the earth using gravity and a mobile device
  Mobile patent, trumps both "on a computer" and "on the Internet." B-)
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
8. Re:Patent by SuperAlgae · 2012-03-21 06:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Curious that you left out Apple. After all, they took an "unlock" slider, which already existed in physical form on mobile phones and other devices, and patented the idea of putting that "on screen". I'm not saying that other companies would not or have not applied for similar patents, but Apple has crowned itself the king of obvious patents with its aggressive pursuit of that one.
9. Re:Patent by squiggleslash · 2012-03-21 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Not to defend Apple, but I've never come across a mobile phone that you unlock using a physical slider. The nearest I can think of are slide phones where you pull (or rather push with your thumb) the phone apart, which is made of two parts similar to the two parts of a flip phone.)
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
10. Re:Patent by msauve · 2012-03-21 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Method and application for use of unique properties of the Higg's bosun to mitigate fictitious centrifugal forces on the surface of a rotating spheroid. Also claimed, said method applied to Internet, mobile, and commercial uses.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
11. Re:Patent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  Except that the "unlock slider" was used in mp3 players for YEARS before existing on phones. It was labeled "hold" back then.
12. Re:Patent by FutureDomain · 2012-03-21 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Meh. I have a better one: "Method and application for use of the Higgs Boson to generate speculative stories which are published on technical news sites to derive ad revenue."
  
  --
  Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
13. Re:Patent by SuperAlgae · 2012-03-21 08:19 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=62&p=1095&g=1256&h=14868
  This pic is from 2006. Notice the red and black slider/switch on the side of the phone.
14. Re:Patent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  It's a software version of a lock switch (which is a switch you slide to unlock)
  Those have existed on some non-flip phones.
15. Re:Patent by wintercolby · 2012-03-21 08:38 · Score: 2
  
  I had a Palm Treo that had a physical slide switch to lock and unlock...
  
  --
  Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
16. Re:Patent by belg4mit · 2012-03-21 10:09 · Score: 2
  
  That's BSAF, not 3M
  
  --
  Were that I say, pancakes?
17. Re:Patent by hairyfeet · 2012-03-21 11:39 · Score: 2
  
  Don't forget the "its a rounded square" patent, gotta love that one. WTF do you think you are gonna make a tablet shaped like? A triangle? You kinda have to build those things around the screen which is...drumroll...a rounded square!
  sadly as we have seen with GMOs they WILL get around this, soon i wouldn't be surprised if people's DNA ended up covered by patents. Our entire patent and copyright system is royally fucked and needs to be tossed out and a new system built from the ashes because this one? All it does is reward entrenched multinationals who have the money to keep a law dept just for trolling. in the end i believe Apple, MSFT, and Google (with a locked down TiVo'ed Android) will split the web between them, and Monstanto will own anything biological. I have seen the future folks, and its some scary shit let me tell you. Hope you can become one of the top 5% because otherwise you are SOL.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
18. Re:Patent by treeves · 2012-03-21 12:15 · Score: 0
  
  BS. It's BASF (Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik)
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
19. Re:Patent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  That, my friend, was an epic post.
  The fact that that is a perfectly valid business model is absurd. When you spell it all out like that, it's hard not to see how screwed up the system is.
20. Re:Patent by Dachannien · 2012-03-21 14:25 · Score: 0
  
  You could apply for it, but you won't get it.
21. Re:Patent by belg4mit · 2012-03-21 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because nobody's ever transposed two keys when typing.
  
  --
  Were that I say, pancakes?
22. Re:Patent by treeves · 2012-03-22 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Sure they ahve.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
23. Re:Patent by Auntiegrav · 2012-03-22 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  With enough lawyer money, you probably will. It just might be kinda watered down in the process.
24. Re:Patent by tedgyz · 2012-03-26 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  What if I add "using computers" or "using The Internet"? Can I apply for a patent for "Method of not falling off the Earth through the application of gravity and The Internet"?
  Only if you make it an iphone app.
  
  --
  "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
Cool ... by gstoddart · 2012-03-21 05:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

Does this also cover patenting genes too?
Because I've never understood how you can patent a gene someone already had.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:Cool ... by NatasRevol · 2012-03-21 05:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Which would be very interesting when applying it to plant species. I'm betting Monsanto might have an issue or two with that.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
2. Re:Cool ... by Opportunist · 2012-03-21 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  I'm neither genetic engineer nor patent lawyer, but my guess would be that what is patentable here is transporting the gene from one species to another one. Which by itself is creepy enough if you ask me that it shouldn't enter my plate.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:Cool ... by X0563511 · 2012-03-21 05:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Too bad for Monsanto. Perhaps a business model relying on the patenting of things that shouldn't be patentable was a dodgy idea to start with?
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
4. Re:Cool ... by NatasRevol · 2012-03-21 05:34 · Score: 2
  
  Definitely. But big money buys a lot of things, including politicians.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
5. Re:Cool ... by Theaetetus · 2012-03-21 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Does this also cover patenting genes too?
  Because I've never understood how you can patent a gene someone already had.
  Nope - that case, Myriad Genetics and the BRCA1 gene, is still going on.
6. Re:Cool ... by NatasRevol · 2012-03-21 05:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Not according to Monsanto. You can't use the genes (seeds) even if they blew into your farm.
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091214/0856327337.shtml
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
7. Re:Cool ... by dan828 · 2012-03-21 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if you could (rather loosely) interpret gene patents or even new species with new genes placed in them as akin to software patents or copyrights.
8. Re:Cool ... by gstoddart · 2012-03-21 05:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I'm neither genetic engineer nor patent lawyer, but my guess would be that what is patentable here is transporting the gene from one species to another one.
  Not always. This, this, this, this ... all of them indicate that merely identifying the gene allows them to be patentable.
  Not create. Not move from one species to another. Merely identifying the existence of it.
  Sorry, but in my mind they're naturally occurring and have no business being patented.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
9. Re:Cool ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  No, those are copyrighted. You owe me $8 Billion for your DNA.
10. Re:Cool ... by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2012-03-21 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Does this also cover patenting genes too?
  Because I've never understood how you can patent a gene someone already had.
  It would seem the SCOTUS would allow gene patents, provided they do something beyond what is already known and is sufficiently significant- so that splicing a gene from plant X onto Y at point Z to give it great protection from A' may be patentable; but it also seems that the idea of splicing genes to give greeter resistance would not be nor would splicing plant X' onto Y at point Z to give it great protection from A' necessarily violate the first patent. Then, IANAL so I 'm probably wrong on all counts.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
11. Re:Cool ... by jellomizer · 2012-03-21 05:42 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The question may fall into discovering genes that already exist, vs. New ones created.
  
  Lets say I spend billions of dollars on a bactera that I can put in glass container that will light up like a 100 watt bulb while feeding it C02, I would want to patent those genes that I created so I can make profit off of bacteria lightbulbs. However if you just found the genes that cured cancer that some people had, and giving others with cancer that gene, I don't think you should be able to patent something you discovered but didn't create.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
12. Re:Cool ... by dan828 · 2012-03-21 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Even so, much of that technology was developed by seeing such things actually happen in nature. There is a good amount of junk that exists in your own DNA that came from outside sources. Look up endogenous retroviral insertions some time for some examples.
13. Re:Cool ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Right. What should be patentable is the industrial process used to isolate and identify the gene. I agree that allowing a patent on the actual gene is a horrible idea. (And I am a patent attorney.)
14. Re:Cool ... by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-03-21 05:52 · Score: 2
  
  per cell or per strand?
15. Re:Cool ... by oxdas · 2012-03-21 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  This ruling seems to agree with you. I only read the article and not the ruling, so I don't know all the details. However, the Supremes seem to be saying that once you strip away the naturally occurring elements to the patent, then strip away the processes that are already widely used or obvious, then you'd better still have something left. That leftover is what is really being patented. If I am reading it correctly, it would suggest that gene themselves are not patentable, nor are genes mixed with widely used isolation techniques, but genes mixed with a novel way of isolating or purifying them could still be patentable. However, someone else could still work on the same gene, so long as they found another method of doing so. (And I am not a patent attorney).
16. Re:Cool ... by realisticradical · 2012-03-21 06:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Interestingly Monsanto might have more to gain from the expiration of the RoundupReady patent than from the profits of the patent itself. Remember, Monsanto sells the weed killer Roundup (glyphosate). Once the RoundupReady trait goes off patent farmers will be able to buy the glyphosate resistant seeds from generic sources or save them year to year. If roundup resistant crop use increases so does roundup use.
  
  I sort of think of it the same way as if cigarette companies came up with a pill that gave you the ability to smoke without ever getting cancer. In terms of profit they'd do better to give away the pills and sell more cigarettes.
17. Re:Cool ... by oxdas · 2012-03-21 06:14 · Score: 2
  
  The cancer curing genes could still be patentable if the method for using or purifying them was novel. In this case though, it would be the process and not the genes that would get the patent.
  As for the bacteria lamp, if the new gene was just the splicing of two naturally occurring genes using standard techniques, would it still qualify?
18. Re:Cool ... by subanark · 2012-03-21 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure that as soon as selective breeding took place the result, it is no longer a natural process, but one that was influenced by humans. Unless the company simply found a species and tried to patent it this rule wouldn't apply. Still even if they did find a species, they could patent the proper way to cultivate it.
19. Re:Cool ... by wintercolby · 2012-03-21 06:29 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  While that may be profitable for Monsanto, it is horrible for our ecosystem. RoundupReady are genetically modified using e. coli bacteria to insert the genetic material. In order to verify that the genetic modification is successful, they also include the gene for penicillin immunity. Now we have massive numbers of organisms with the gene sequence necessary to be immune to penicillin, and more producers of GMO seeds means more genetic modifications in the wild. Monsanto has already come out with 2,4D (a component of agent orange) immune seed to prepare for the expiration of RoundupReady patents. It's also worth mentioning that a significant number of common weeds are immune to Roundup now.
  
  --
  Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
20. Re:Cool ... by HairyNevus · 2012-03-21 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  True, but the glyphosate patent ran out back in 2000. RoundupReady has been mostly a marketing strategy (in the title, for sure) to still encourage buying glyphosate in its brand-name form. So, when that patent runs out, Cargill or whoever can make "Brand-Name"Ready crops, and package glyphosate under "Brand-Name", thus following the same plan and ultimately cutting into Monsanto's profits.
  
  [off topic] I remember the year I spent studying Applied Plant Science was also my most politically-active year, because it seemed no one cared about the corporate games being played...
  
  --
  You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
21. Re:Cool ... by wintercolby · 2012-03-21 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you are correct then this means that the fight over the patent on the gene that causes breast cancer is likely to result in an invalidated patent when the Supreme Court takes the case.
  
  --
  Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
22. Re:Cool ... by idontgno · 2012-03-21 06:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Quote from third link in TFS:
  
  Whither Myriad: Although no action has been taken yet, I presume that the Supreme Court will now vacate and remand the pending Myriad case with instructions to the Federal Circuit to reconsider its holding that isolated human DNA is patentable. Following Mayo, the court could logically find that the information in the DNA represents a law of nature, that the DNA itself is a natural phenomenon, that the isolation of the DNA simply employs an isolation process already well known and expected at the time of the invention, and ultimately that the isolated DNA is unpatentable because it effectively claims a law of nature or natural phenomenon. One distinguishing point is that Prometheus claimed a process while Myriad claims a composition of matter. As we have seen in recent cases, the Federal Circuit already largely rejects formalistic distinctions between process and composition claims. Here, that distinction is further minimized by the reality that the claimed DNA is functionally characterized by the already well known process of isolating human DNA.
  (Emphasis mine.)
  Of course, that's just an observer's speculation, but very logical IM(A)HO*. We can hope that logic will continue to prevail.
  *In My Amateur Honest Opinion
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
23. Re:Cool ... by X0563511 · 2012-03-21 06:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why the hell did they choose to test with penicillin immunity? Couldn't they have just altered the color response of the plant or something?
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
24. Re:Cool ... by apcullen · 2012-03-21 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  FTFA:
  
  Although no action has been taken yet, I presume that the Supreme Court will now vacate and remand the pending Myriad case with instructions to the Federal Circuit to reconsider its holding that isolated human DNA is patentable. Following Mayo, the court could logically find that the information in the DNA represents a law of nature, that the DNA itself is a natural phenomenon, ...
  
  Apparently there's a case about this issue in litigation.
25. Re:Cool ... by wintercolby · 2012-03-21 07:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I take everything I said about the Supreme court doing the right thing back. When other justices recuse themselves over minor conflicts of interest, when it comes to Monsanto, Clarence Thomas fails to see any conflict at all.
  
  --
  Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
26. Re:Cool ... by ShanghaiBill · 2012-03-21 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  they also include the gene for penicillin immunity.
  No they don't. The facts are enough to show how evil Monsanto is. You don't need to make up lies.
27. Re:Cool ... by ArcherB · 2012-03-21 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not according to Monsanto. You can't use the genes (seeds) even if they blew into your farm.
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091214/0856327337.shtml
  Your linked article says nothing about "You can't use the genes (seeds) even if they blew into your farm"
  I found several links referring to organic farmers suing Monsanto fearing that genetically modified pollen may contaminate organic crops, but nothing about Monsanto suing farmers who saved seed from a non-Monsanto crop that had been contaminated by a nearby Monsanto grown one.
  Not disagreeing with you. I've just read that several times with no legitimate links to back it up.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
28. Re:Cool ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm seeing pampas grass here and there where some California agency sprayed roundup. Pampas is a non-native "beach grass" that grows 2 meters or more in height so it's pretty obvious. Near the famous Mavericks surf break, they sprayed the bluffs to get rid of it.
  In the same location, a homeless guy took dried stalks of the grass and made a giant peace sign out of it, which was visible from across the harbor.
  So. They're willing to pay some chemical company to spray crap on the grass that will likely be ineffective. The homeless guy got nothing. He probably would have pulled *all* the grass up by the root for minimum wage and made something really cool out of it.
  Besides, the idea that you can undo all the "non-native" crap in California is ridiculous. The "natives" probably killed the megafauna. The oak trees? Nope. The natives planted those so they coud make acorn mean which was a staple. They even managed the hillsides with controlled burns, just like we do. OK sure, a better mix of vegetation would be nice but if you think you can restore "native vegetation" exactly as it was before, then you're living in fantasy land... or perhaps California...
29. Re:Cool ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  Nothing in your post supports the assertion "it is horrible for our ecosystem."
  
  .. are genetically modified using e. coli [sic] bacteria ... they also include the gene for penecillin immunity
  Here we can only assume you're referring to injecting the penicillin immunity gene into E. Coli bacteria, because if the gene for penicillin immunity were injected into PLANTS, who would care? Ok, so during the process of genetically modifying seeds they use E. Coli to inject gene sequences to make the plants resistant to Roundup. Since it's probably illegal to just dump E. Coli contaminant everywhere (and because geneticists aren't stupid), the seeds/E. Coli mixture are probably bathed in strong UV light for 30 min.+, which kills all the E. Coli (hint: genes don't make bacteria resistant to UV.) So we don't have these scary E. Coli in the wild - just in the factory (or the lab.)
  
  Monsanto has already come out with a 2,4D [sic] (a component of agent orange [sic]) immune seed ...
  2,4-D has been in use as an herbicide for decades with no provable ill effects on human population, despite significant scientific research into the subject. The fact that 2,4-D is a component of Agent Orange is irrelevant, although if you really want to use that argument, you should be aware that copper is a component of nuclear bombs and should stop using that as well.
  I agree that 2,4-D is provably bad for *aquatic* ecosystems, and its use should be limited or eliminated where there is the potential for runoff into neighboring lakes, rivers, and streams.
  
  ... It's also worth mentioning that a significant number of common weeds are immune to Roundup now.
  Unless they are growing into plants like the one in Little Shop of Horrors, I doubt we have much to worry about weeds becoming resistant to Roundup.
  Less fearmongering, more science please.
30. Re:Cool ... by wintercolby · 2012-03-21 08:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I found this article from 1998 about Novartis and maize grown with antibiotic immunity, as well as this article on Monsanto Roundup Ready cottonseed, as well as this article on GMO safety directly from Monsanto which specifically states that they build in antibiotic resistance.
  
  --
  Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
31. Re:Cool ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  They're too big and corrupt to have issues. Their boatload of lawyers babbling on in legaleze will quietly eliminate any problems.
32. Re:Cool ... by rodarson2k · 2012-03-21 10:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  To do genetic engineering, you HAVE to use a selection marker. When you insert a gene, you get something like a 1 in a million success rate. You need a way to kill off everything that wasn't a success, or you'll never find your needle in the haystack.
  Everyone who does genetic engineering uses ampR as a selection marker, and no one says thing one about it. I wouldn't be surprised if the FDA REQUIRES you to use ampR as your selection marker in order to pass their crazy safety requirements - in fact, i looked it up, and while it's not a requirement, it's fully sanctioned. No one says "hey wait, what about penicillin resistance?" Why? Well, there are a bundle of reasons. To quote the FDA:
  a) Danger of eating food with genetic modifications: None
  b) Potential to transfer genetic modifications to gut bacteria: None in the absence of selective pressure, nearly none in the presence.
  c) Potential to transfer genetic modifications to soil bacteria: None in the absence of selective pressure. Additionally, almost every bacteria that you could possibly transfer the gene to already has it. Seriously, every bacteria sequenced has resistance genes to almost every antibiotic out there, they're just not expressed very frequently. It's the way things are, because plants and fungi have been using antibiotics for millennia.
  The use of antibiotic resistance genes as a selection marker is not a reason to hate Monsanto.
  There are plenty of others.
33. Re:Cool ... by hairyfeet · 2012-03-21 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Uhhh...wouldn't that be a trademark and NOT a patent? I mean i'm sure any patents they had for John Deere tractors ran out long ago but because john Deere is a trademark i still can't make a John Deere tractor. i bet Roundup is a trademark as is Roundup ready.
  As for the clueless above that are saying "What is the big deal if a few weeds become roundup resistant? let me answer with just one word...Kudzu. Weeds are damned hard to kill as it is, and can grow damned near anywhere so taking away another weapon in our fight against invasive species is a BAD idea with a capital BAD. You don't know what destructive is until you see that shit take over an area, houses, cars, fields, soon that is ALL there is and with it come the big ass snakes and soon the whole area is just unfit for anything. its like how we wasted most of our antibiotics on fattening up livestock and now that we actually need them we are truly fucked. But hey, as long as Monsanto makes a God like profit, right?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
34. Re:Cool ... by interkin3tic · 2012-03-21 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know, but I do know that Monsanto and others who could make nearly unlimited amounts of money from patents on DNA sequences already have very deep pockets and will do anything they can to make sure they can make monopolies.
35. Re:Cool ... by gstoddart · 2012-03-21 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure that as soon as selective breeding took place the result, it is no longer a natural process, but one that was influenced by humans.
  Well, there's there's 'natural', 'normal', and 'un-natural' (and I don't mean the latter in the sense of some abomination).
  Natural would be breeding in the wild -- whatever makes them do well and pass on their genes. This is what they do without us.
  Normal would be breeding two horses in the hopes of trying to get one where you get a desirable trait for that breed. This is selective breeding. It's influenced by people, but it's not like it's ceased to be a natural process -- horses do occasionally get to mate and mares still give birth.
  Un-natural is where you take things to an entirely new level. Goats which produce spider silk proteins, glow in the dark cats, venomous cabbage. No matter how hard you try to cross breed goats, or cats, or cabbages ... you can't really express any of those traits. It's just not there to be expressed, because it doesn't occur naturally in those kinds of things.
  
  Still even if they did find a species, they could patent the proper way to cultivate it.
  How? By describing what kind of plant species it is, what temperature and soil conditions it thrives in, what kind of acidity?
  That's called gardening and botany -- I don't think you can patent those.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
36. Re:Cool ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 14:14 · Score: 0
  
  First you mix up a whole bunch of cells with plasmids containing genes for penicillin immunity plus the gene you actually want to insert. Then you apply penicillin. The only cells that are left are the ones that successfully incorporated the plasmids.
  Okay, as a side-effect, you now have a bunch of penicillin-resistant bacteria. But you don't have to use anything but penicillin, so it's never going to give them resistance to any other antibiotics. The technique is useful enough that it's worth diminishing the effectiveness of a single antibiotic.
37. Re:Cool ... by russotto · 2012-03-21 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  Why the hell did they choose to test with penicillin immunity?
  It's Monsanto, they're evil. Their first choice was the Ebola virulence sequence, but they didn't think they could pay enough to get that one approved for sale.
38. Re:Cool ... by oursland · 2012-03-21 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff
  
  As per Wikipedia's rules, you've got your inline citations right there. 145 individuals sued for precisely what you claim to have not seen evidence for.
39. Re:Cool ... by Neil+Boekend · 2012-03-21 21:24 · Score: 1
  
  Is there horizontal gene transfer between plants? Is there a mechanism for it?
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
40. Re:Cool ... by X0563511 · 2012-03-22 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't ask why they tested with another gene - I asked why they chose one that would result in penicillin resistant bacteria.... and not something much more harmless.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
41. Re:Cool ... by X0563511 · 2012-03-22 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Gah. Didn't load all of your comment for some reason. Ignore my other reply, please.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
42. Re:Cool ... by cundare · 2012-03-22 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  >>all of them indicate that merely identifying the gene allows them to be patentable.Not create. Not move from one species to another. Merely identifying the existence of it.
  Seriously, no.
  RTFM or at least RYOFLs (Your Own Links). One example from the first reference: ""While this does not quite boil down to [the patent holders] owning our genes, these rights exclude us from using our genes for those purposes that are covered in the patent[.]"
  And, even more to the point, if you're getting your information about nuances of patent law from the friggin' Register or discovery.com, you need to question most of what you know. Read the actual opinions: a link is at the top of the page.
  This is one example of why the so many postings that crop up on Slashdot every time somebody posts an IP-related news item are so annoying. At least the people who post on Patently-O (follow the other link in the news item), although often just as opinionated & self-important, usually have enough of a clue to make the attitude a bit defensible. Yes, there are a few people here who apparently work in the patent field, but they're generally inundated by the "The patent system is broke dude! Everybody knows it. End of story!!" crowd. Sigh.
43. Re:Cool ... by HairyNevus · 2012-03-22 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  "RoundUp" is (TM), that's the brand name. But *glyphosate* is all there is to RoundUp, and the patent on that ran out.
  
  --
  You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
44. Re:Cool ... by wintercolby · 2012-03-22 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  And that's precisely why every single time you take your kids to the doctors for ear infections they prescribe Amoxicillin, which is a penicillin derivative.
  
  The suggestion that there is no danger from eating food with genetic modifications is mostly untested, but is quickly being proved flat wrong
  
  --
  Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
45. Re:Cool ... by wintercolby · 2012-03-22 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  I forgot to mention that covering hundreds of thousands of acres with herbicide is in itself "selective pressure", so your b and c are invalidated as well.
  
  --
  Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
46. Re:Cool ... by Auntiegrav · 2012-03-22 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the patent system is a reflection of a time when we needed to encourage the use of resources to fill up an 'empty' (sigh) frontier with white folk and their gadgets. The concept fails when applied over an open-ended time frame. You either have to accept that everything is already in the public domain or that 'property' (intellectual or otherwise) is a process of denying resources from some in order to increase their price (perceived value, not actual value). Usefulness ("has a use") becomes a moot point. What we need is a restriction that something has to be more useful to the future of the universe than it consumes in resources (including the resources used to get the patent). "Net Useful" or "Net Future Usefulness" ("Future Usefulness"....F.U.....naahhhh ;-).. THEN it might be a useful system. Meanwhile, ideas are like armpits: everyone has at least two and they both probably stink. Don't mortgage the kids on it unless you already own the government and can force people to pay through the tax/debt system.
nothing and everything's a law of nature by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Whether we decide something to be a law of nature or a law of man developing as part of nature is a matter of drawing an arbitrary line.
This is why all notions of property are arbitrary.
1. Re:nothing and everything's a law of nature by mark-t · 2012-03-21 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  all notions of property are arbitrary.
  I would disagree with that assertion.
  Your desires, your dreams, your feelings, and all of your own thoughts are your own property. Although external and perhaps unusual forces may keep you from taking action with respect to any of them, they are nonetheless still yours.
  Even if these things were only put into you by brainwashing, or by subliminal or even direct suggestion, they are still fully yours, and you are accountable to them, and take responsibility for them. The only way that you can fully lose this property is by dying.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
2. Re:nothing and everything's a law of nature by wickedskaman · 2012-03-21 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Would that make them intellectual property then? ;)
  
  --
  Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
3. Re:nothing and everything's a law of nature by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  Unexpressed, they're inaccessible to others, but they're not your own property in any natural sense, any more than the sight of your body is yours as long as no-one else can see you. It is easy to conceive of a sufficiently technologically advanced government / corporatocracy which would consider it to have the right to access this information in the interests of security / targeted advertising.
4. Re:nothing and everything's a law of nature by mark-t · 2012-03-21 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Unexpressed, they're inaccessible to other
  They are accessible to you. Since they are entirely internal anyways, that's enough.
  
  t is easy to conceive of a sufficiently technologically advanced government / corporatocracy which would consider it to have the right to access this information in the interests of security / targeted advertising.
  Whether somebody else can access them does not mean they are not yours... it only means that one does not have privacy.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
5. Re:nothing and everything's a law of nature by dtmos · 2012-03-21 06:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  This is why all notions of property are arbitrary.
  Could you give me my wallet, there in your pocket?
6. Re:nothing and everything's a law of nature by Crag · 2012-03-21 09:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is why all notions of property are arbitrary.
  Could you give me my wallet, there in your pocket?
  Will you do the same for me later? If so, yes, you may have the wallet in my pocket.
  Just because you and I currently have an agreed on notion of property which says that the wallet in my pocket is mine doesn't mean we can't re-negotiate it right now, if it suits us both. If anyone could take my stuff at any time I might not have any food to eat at the end of the day. But if I can take anyone else's stuff too (without them minding), then that's not a problem any more.
  I still prefer our current model (the wallet in my pants is mine) because I don't know who you are and don't trust you to support me when I need it, but I do share with the people I trust. The concept of property is not a fundamental trait of the universe. It is something some animals develop to optimize resource management. It is something which could always be improved. Its boundaries are negotiable and arbitrary.
7. Re:nothing and everything's a law of nature by dtmos · 2012-03-21 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  I was just being flip in my earlier comment, but let me attempt a serious reply:
  
  Just because you and I currently have an agreed on [sic] notion of property. . .
  
  When did we establish that we currently have an agreed-upon notion of property? My notion of property is that everything you have is mine, including the pocket the wallet is in. Did you agree to this? How do you know that I agreed? Did you take my word?
  The autocratic nation in which we both reside just nationalized "our" wallets -- without our knowledge or consent -- and an official has taken our wallets by force. Neither of us had an agreement with this official, nor negotiated with him, but he certainly has our wallets. He claims they are now his, and may even have the support of the populace (to which the contents of our wallets are promised, of course), which agrees with the official's notion of property.
  My point is, it's not only the concept of property that's arbitrary, it's the concept of negotiation and agreement; and I would argue that the latter is much more arbitrary than the former. Neither, of course, are "laws of nature" (whatever those are).
Ok.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:16 · Score: 0

Is this as good as it sounds?
Now we just need to fix patents for "X, but on the internet. X, but on a mobile phone. X, but in the cloud"
1. Re:Ok.. by X0563511 · 2012-03-21 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps they need to get rid of the whole "X, but on Y" construct entirely...
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
2. Re:Ok.. by rufty_tufty · 2012-03-21 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Aren't most inventions X, but on Y?
  "It's a steam engine, but on a rail carriage"
  "It's a speaking tube, but on electricity"
  "It's a wheel but on inflatable sausages"
  you get the idea...
  
  --
  "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
3. Re:Ok.. by X0563511 · 2012-03-21 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  "It's a steam engine, but on a rail carriage"
  "It's a speaking tube, but on electricity"
  "It's a wheel but on inflatable sausages"
  1. A rail carriage is a rail carriage, no matter if it's powered by steam power, electricity, or magical unicorn farts. If the steam engine was new, then that should be patentable. Coupling it to the rail carriage shouldn't have been patentable on it's own.
  2. It's not a speaking tube at all. A speaking tube was a waveguide for audio. An intercom is not.
  3. What?
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
4. Re:Ok.. by rufty_tufty · 2012-03-21 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  3. Pneumatic tyres
  
  --
  "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
5. Re:Ok.. by X0563511 · 2012-03-22 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Aah, didn't make the connection with sausages. I tend to not eat sausages with skin/wrapper :)
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Swinging Sideways Review? by Bob9113 · 2012-03-21 05:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Does this mean we can finally get a review for the patent on swinging sideways on a swing? The patent in question does not merely add "apply it" to suspended mass behavior -- it adds "apply it, but sideways."

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
1. Re:Swinging Sideways Review? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  That would require an opinion since it adds new material.
2. Re:Swinging Sideways Review? by Dachannien · 2012-03-21 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  It already got a Director-ordered re-exam, during which the applicant, who readily stated that the application was intended to be a farce in the first place, ultimately abandoned it after all the claims were rejected.
patentee by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:23 · Score: 0

"This language suggests that the burden will be on the patentee to prove that its limitations are more than patent attorney tricks."
So uh the patent itself has to actively prove its own worth? that would be a trick indeed.
1. Re:patentee by Opportunist · 2012-03-21 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  No, the patentee would have to prove that what he wants to patent actually involved more than him going out to have some beer with some friends and started with more than a alcohol-driven "I have this crazy idea..."
  The patent SHOULD have to prove it's worthy of a patent. But not even that is required.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hrm... by Artraze · 2012-03-21 05:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have some pretty mixed feelings about this. While it's true that there are some bad patents in this vein, I don't know if I'd consider them even a substantial portion of it. The trouble is that just because something is a law of nature doesn't make it 'obvious', and actually discovering that law can take a considerable amount of research. For example: every chemical process ever invented. Forget patenting extractive distillation methods. Hell, you could look at the lead chamber process as unpatentable because lead's role in the process (despite being a hugely important innovation) follows from simple natural laws.
Now, I'm really glad to see the supreme court start to take a more critical approach to IP, but unless there's something I'm missing here this decision could really have some bad side effects.
1. Re:Hrm... by Jonner · 2012-03-21 05:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you mean there could be "bad side effects" for companies whose business model is based on milking patents as long as possible rather than continually trying to out-innovate their competition, I'm sure you're right.
2. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The trouble is that just because something is a law of nature doesn't make it 'obvious', and actually discovering that law can take a considerable amount of research.
  
  So? People do a considerable amount of research and discover interesting things all the time. Why does that mean there should be some complicated government system dictating what everyone else can do with that knowledge even if they independently figure out the same thing?
  
  How does an artificial monopoly on facts of nature benefit society? If you just want to give people money for research, why not just do it directly instead of this insanely complex system?
3. Re:Hrm... by vlm · 2012-03-21 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Hell, you could look at the lead chamber process as unpatentable because lead's role in the process (despite being a hugely important innovation) follows from simple natural laws.
  Oh goodie something I know a little bit about. I love it when we talk chemistry on /.
  However, from the article:
  
  To be clear, the court still maintains the law of Diehr that “an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.” On the other hand, the “application” must be “significant,” not “too broadly preempt” use of the law, and include other elements that constitute an “inventive concept” that is significant and separate from the natural law itself.
  From what I understand of that, a patent reading "oxidation and hydrolosis, of sulfur, apply it" would fail miserably.
  On the other hand F-ing around with strange catalysts in lead lined chambers is A-OK for a patent.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
4. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  some bad patents
  Bad patents (and bad tort form) are what's keeping healthcare in the US expensive. It costs a hospital thousands of dollars to use an object to hold your organs in place "through the use of gravity" -- because someone patented rocks as paperweights for organs.
  New tool/procedure patented that gives a person 1% higher chance of survival, but costs 10x as much? Use it or you're getting sued for malpractice if that person dies!
  Before the housing bubble burst, many experts were expecting healthcare to be the engine for this recession, but the housing crisis catalyzed much faster than anyone expected (they were all expected it, they just didn't think it would take a less than a week to shit in EVERYONE's bed)
5. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  I do understand your point but right now we're dealing with a hemorrhage of patent abuse of which the case this is based on is probably one of the worst imaginable in it's impact. At this point we no longer need any more proof that patents are going to be abused and screwed in the worst possible ways by those for whom money has replaced common sense with greed. You can't count on a corporation to be moral about it's choices because that's not part of it's DNA. So the boundaries must be set even if they're not perfect.
  Of the two, this is clearly the lesser evil unless someone else has a better effective solution.
6. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  I think disallowing patents on chemical processes like this would be a huge win. Use trade secrets to protect your IP and cover your research dollars if you have to, but the patent system has shown itself to be more of a negative on innovation than a positive. About the only people who can even for an instant claim that trade secrets don't work is the drug companies -- because they have to expose things for medical testing -- but given the massive size of the medical market I'm fairly confident that they'll come up with some way to pay for their research.
7. Re:Hrm... by Artraze · 2012-03-21 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well if you look at their argument:
  
  The relation is a consequence of the ways in which thiopurine compounds are metabolized by the body—entirely natural processes. And so a patent that simply describes that relation sets forth a natural law.
  They seem to be arguing that the metabolic behavior and/or equilibrium along with the dosing boundaries are natural laws, and unpatentable. This is pretty much any chemical reaction: conditions, equilibrium and acceptable concentrations.
  Then, regarding the basic dosage control:
  
  Because methods for making such determinations were well known in the art, this step simply tells doctors to engage in well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by scientists in the field. Such activity is normally not sufficient to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law.
  They basically indicate that for the patent to be valid it has to use methods that are novel independent of the natural law that was discovered.
  So the trouble is, that really most chemical process patents follow that form:
  1) Discover basic natural law
  a) Lead's effect in producing acid
  b) relative volatilities with the addition of some other component
  2) "Apply it"
  a) builld chamber out of lead
  b) distill with appropriate additives
  Mind that "On the other hand F-ing around with strange catalysts in lead lined chambers" is actually just discovering a natural law. The only transformative addition is then using of lead in the process. (Note that AFAIK nitrates were already being used in the 'glass jar process' prior to the lead chamber invention.) There are ultimately very few chemical processes that can't be rewritten in this way... Perhaps complex multistage processes when one could argue the innovation isn't in any the reactions, but rather the idea of stringing them together.
8. Re:Hrm... by oxdas · 2012-03-21 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  In your example, the company could still patent any novel methods for identifying or using the "law of nature", just not the law itself. Anyone else could still make use of the law, just not using the methods in the patent. The important thing here is that the method is novel. Prometheus was trying to use a product of nature, mixing it with widely used methods, then calling it something new. If Prometheus had implemented a novel method for testing then the patent might have been valid, but it wouldn't have prevented the Mayo clinic from continuing to use widely used methods in respect the drug and human metabolism.
9. Re:Hrm... by el+borak · 2012-03-21 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Forget patenting extractive distillation methods.
  You can patent the method all you want, you just can't patent the extracted compound if it's naturally occurring.
  If the extraction method is the most practical way of extracting the substance, and the substance has sufficient value, you've got a nice business there.
  
  --
  An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan. -- George Patton
10. Re:Hrm... by lgw · 2012-03-21 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  How does an artificial monopoly on facts of nature benefit society? If you just want to give people money for research, why not just do it directly instead of this insanely complex system?
  This system gives money to people who reseach things that other people actually want or need, which turns out to be a better system than giving money to research things that sound cool, or to the politically connected, or some other central-planning fiasco.
  Yeah, it's screwed up and needs reform, but it does suceed in rewarding research that actually gets productized and consumed - that is, research that actually delivers a benefit to society, in the opinion of the members of society.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
11. Re:Hrm... by vlm · 2012-03-21 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  were well known in the art...well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by scientists in the field
  So if the romans did lead chamber sulfuric production, they'd be outta luck, but if they're the first documented attempt at the lead chamber process, then no problemo.
  
  Perhaps complex multistage processes when one could argue the innovation isn't in any the reactions, but rather the idea of stringing them together.
  I would think that
  
  previously engaged in by scientists in the field
  Would take effect. So trivial modifications of process are not likely to pass, but something really new is OK.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
12. Re:Hrm... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-03-21 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Process patents describe a series of specific steps and conditions under which the transformation occurs. As such they aren't patenting a natural law, merely the specific conditions under which desirable effects of that law can be realized.
13. Re:Hrm... by martin-boundary · 2012-03-21 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  This system gives money to people who reseach things that other people actually want or need, which turns out to be a better system than giving money to research things that sound cool, or to the politically connected, or some other central-planning fiasco.
  
  Sorry, but no. Not at all. The patent system gives money to people who want to gamble that other people might actually want or need something once it's available. That's the whole purpose of it.
  Whenever people *actually* want or need something, they're prepared to pay you in advance to develop those solutions. There's no need for patents or monopolies to guarantee profits. Just 1) convince people you can make something they really want, 2) they pay you to support you while you develop it, 3) you deliver.
  The use case for patents is speculation and gambling. It goes like this: 1) let's spend a lot of money making FOO regardless. 2) Oh oh, please Mr Uncle Sam, we've spent all this money already and anybody can copy FOO now. 3) Thank you Mr Uncle Sam, the gamble paid off.
  In both cases you might end up with a product that benefits humanity, but in the first case you have a growing market with lots of competing players and in the second case you have a monopoly and intellectual censorship.
Laws of Nature? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:23 · Score: 0

Aren't all patents based on the laws of nature. I don't know of any that depend on magic. In fact I have never seen anything that was not natural.
1. Re:Laws of Nature? by Opportunist · 2012-03-21 05:33 · Score: 2
  
  There are quite a few patents that cannot be implemented yet because they depend on some material the physical properties of which simply do not exist. They slipped through the review process, sadly, but they're there because someone thought that at some point in the future someone might come up with said material and then they want to cash in.
  So yes, there are patents that are based on magical materials. Close enough to magic if you ask me.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:Laws of Nature? by mjperson · 2012-03-21 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't that spoil the patent though? I mean if 25 years from now we discover the unobtanium needed to make your antigrav copter patent work, well too late, no anti-grav copter patent for you, because it was patented 25 years ago and has entered the public domain since.
3. Re:Laws of Nature? by spire3661 · 2012-03-21 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  I always find the term 'supernatural' amusing.
  
  --
  Good-bye
4. Re:Laws of Nature? by devjoe · 2012-03-21 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Not entirely, because the invention of the processes used to create the previously unavailable material may be patentable. And since the exact nature of the material was not known at the time of the original patent, there will probably be modifications to that design needed to make it work with the newly invented substance, again potentially patentable. You're right that it severely reduces the patentability of the antigrav copter, but I think that's how the patent system is supposed to work - the ideas people thought of 25 years ago SHOULDN'T be able to be patented, and in this case, there would be significant portions of this invention which are not covered by patents.
"additional features" by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · 2012-03-21 05:25 · Score: 0

Would that be Microsoft's hidden features patent or another google, facebook or apple patent? Actually no! Whilst writing I this; I have deduced it could only be a Monsanto patent.

--
All cows eat grass!
Goodbye software patents? by betterunixthanunix · 2012-03-21 05:27 · Score: 2

Let's see...computer programs are proofs of mathematical statements (see: Curry-Howard correspondence)...so does this ruling finally invalidate software patents? Or are we still going to have software patents, and just demand that they not cover statements that are "obvious" to some judge?

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:Goodbye software patents? by Theaetetus · 2012-03-21 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Let's see...computer programs are proofs of mathematical statements (see: Curry-Howard correspondence)...so does this ruling finally invalidate software patents?
  Nope. The opinion affirmatively cited Diehr.
  That said, computer programs are already unpatentable... Valid software patents involve hardware, and hardware is outside of the Curry-Howard correspondence, so that argument doesn't even get you to invalidating software patents.
  
  Or are we still going to have software patents, and just demand that they not cover statements that are "obvious" to some judge?
  That would be a better way to go at it. We shouldn't be refusing patents on software that actually is new, useful, and not obvious to anyone, simply because they're software... and conversely, that some obvious patents are wrongly issued by the PTO doesn't mean that an entire industry should be kicked out of patent eligibility. Let's focus our energies on requesting better examination, and having the PTO hire more software engineers and CS majors, rather than trying to abolish all software patents, whether obvious or not. Plus, the former is more likely to succeed. Congress may tell the PTO to hire more computer programmers, but they aren't going to tell the PTO to cut off an entire industry.
2. Re:Goodbye software patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  I believe in a better analysis; Try that this is exacly what they held in the medical sense. Software is program code to take input, process it by mathematical formulas and generate control signals that result in machine output of some type or another whether or not words or electrical signals to cause action. Thus exactly the same as measuring a test level, calculating the dose and applying it. .... I believe that any computer program can be reduced exactly to this Supreme Court Decision. YEA Supremes! Good Judgement for a change!
3. Re:Goodbye software patents? by decipher_saint · 2012-03-21 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  For a moment I was worried but then I remembered I don't use natural numbers in my code.
  
  --
  crazy dynamite monkey
4. Re:Goodbye software patents? by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-03-21 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Better examination would have to be a lot more restrictive than it is now. Currently the PTO grants so many patents that there are not enough lawyers to review them for each company that could be effected. It is currently mathmatically impossible to comply with patent law if your a software developer.
5. Re:Goodbye software patents? by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-03-21 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  meh compiled binaries are proofs of mathematical statements. Computer programs in text form are specialized form of speach. The computer can be micro processor, a person with a calculator, or a pet dog.
6. Re:Goodbye software patents? by russotto · 2012-03-21 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  That said, computer programs are already unpatentable... Valid software patents involve hardware
  Oh, give it up. Software patents which involve hardware do so by invoking perfectly generic hardware. The inventive step (if indeed there is one) is in the software, the hardware is a mere formality.
  And there's even software patents which invoke the hardware the program is _stored on_, though I believe this particular dodge has been struck down.
7. Re:Goodbye software patents? by Theaetetus · 2012-03-21 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  That said, computer programs are already unpatentable... Valid software patents involve hardware
  Oh, give it up. Software patents which involve hardware do so by invoking perfectly generic hardware. The inventive step (if indeed there is one) is in the software, the hardware is a mere formality.
  So? If a patent claims a+b+c and elements a and b are known, but element c is novel and nonobvious, the claim as a whole is patentable. That even applies if "a" is a known computer.
  That said, this is irrelevant to the question - you're talking about "inventive step", which is another term for nonobviousness: article 56 in Europe, 35 USC 103 in the US, etc. That's not the question here, which is patent eligible subject matter: i.e. whether even the most inventive, novel software in the entire world is patentable. That question is 35 USC 101 in the US, article 52 in Europe, etc. And that question has been answered: if it's just software, no... if it includes hardware - even "perfectly generic hardware" - it is patent eligible. If it includes a novel and nonobvious element - i.e. answers the other two questions in 35 USC 102 and 103 - then yes, it is patentable.
  
  And there's even software patents which invoke the hardware the program is _stored on_, though I believe this particular dodge has been struck down.
  Beauregard claims, from In re Beauregard. They claim not software, not a machine, but an article of manufacture: specifically, a manufactured computer storage device that has imprinted on it or encoded in it the novel, nonobvious software. And no, it hasn't been "struck down" and things like CD-ROMs including new software are certainly patentable.
8. Re:Goodbye software patents? by russotto · 2012-03-21 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  So software isn't patentable, software "running on a computer" or "encoded on storage medium" is patentable. And you think that's something more than mere sophistry.
9. Re:Goodbye software patents? by Theaetetus · 2012-03-22 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  So software isn't patentable, software "running on a computer" or "encoded on storage medium" is patentable. And you think that's something more than mere sophistry.
  Not just I - the Supreme Court thinks so too, which is why in this decision, they cited Diehr positively.
  And yes, it's actually an important distinction. Why? One available remedy for patent infringement is an injunction. You infringe my patent, I can get a court order telling you not to do that any more. Issues of obviousness or novelty aside, since we're talking about patent eligibility, if my patent covers "entering data into a computer, processing the data by the computer, and displaying a depiction of the processed data," a court can order you not to use a computer in that way. By if my patent covers "considering data, processing the data, and outputting the data," now we have trouble... How can a court order you to not think of something? If a patent can be infringed entirely in your mind, doesn't that make it a thoughtcrime?
  And lest you think I'm being flippant, consider diagnostic method patents... "identifying heightened levels of x in a patient; diagnosing the patient as having disease y." If you read the patent application for one of those, you may find an example describing patient John Doe with elevated levels of x, therefore indicating he has disease y an- wait, you just infringed the patent. By reading the patent. And a court can order you to never, ever think of that correlation again? That makes no sense.
  By explicitly requiring machine steps or tangible articles of manufacture, we eliminate the possibility for these purely-mental patents. You want to perform all the steps of my patented software with a pad of paper and a pen? Have at it. I can't stop you, and I haven't made thinking a crime. But I can stop you from taking the additional steps of programming a computer to do it and using the computer to execute the software.
10. Re:Goodbye software patents? by russotto · 2012-03-22 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Not just I - the Supreme Court thinks so too, which is why in this decision, they cited Diehr positively.
  The Supreme Court collectively and the justices individually are masters of sophistry.
  Allowing unpatentable subject matter to become patentable by combining it with generic hardware amounts to eviscerating the limits on patentable subject matter.
11. Re:Goodbye software patents? by Theaetetus · 2012-03-23 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  Not just I - the Supreme Court thinks so too, which is why in this decision, they cited Diehr positively.
  The Supreme Court collectively and the justices individually are masters of sophistry.
  Allowing unpatentable subject matter to become patentable by combining it with generic hardware amounts to eviscerating the limits on patentable subject matter.
  ... except for the way that I said, which I believe is the point:
  
  And yes, it's actually an important distinction. Why? One available remedy for patent infringement is an injunction. You infringe my patent, I can get a court order telling you not to do that any more. Issues of obviousness or novelty aside, since we're talking about patent eligibility, if my patent covers "entering data into a computer, processing the data by the computer, and displaying a depiction of the processed data," a court can order you not to use a computer in that way. By if my patent covers "considering data, processing the data, and outputting the data," now we have trouble... How can a court order you to not think of something? If a patent can be infringed entirely in your mind, doesn't that make it a thoughtcrime?
  And lest you think I'm being flippant, consider diagnostic method patents... "identifying heightened levels of x in a patient; diagnosing the patient as having disease y." If you read the patent application for one of those, you may find an example describing patient John Doe with elevated levels of x, therefore indicating he has disease y an- wait, you just infringed the patent. By reading the patent. And a court can order you to never, ever think of that correlation again? That makes no sense.
  By explicitly requiring machine steps or tangible articles of manufacture, we eliminate the possibility for these purely-mental patents. You want to perform all the steps of my patented software with a pad of paper and a pen? Have at it. I can't stop you, and I haven't made thinking a crime. But I can stop you from taking the additional steps of programming a computer to do it and using the computer to execute the software.
Dang it. I'm confused. Remind me again... by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-03-21 05:34 · Score: 1

Exactly what patents cover that *isn't* within the realm of laws of nature?

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
1. Re:Dang it. I'm confused. Remind me again... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly.
  So, they've just indicated that patents, themselves, are invalid. I'm glad they finally realized this.
2. Re:Dang it. I'm confused. Remind me again... by Jason+Levine · 2012-03-21 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Method of Hanging In Mid-Air For A Few Seconds, Completely Ignoring The Law of Gravity Before Plummeting Off A Cliff... Wait, that one's owned by Wile E Coyote.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
3. Re:Dang it. I'm confused. Remind me again... by GLMDesigns · 2012-03-21 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it was the ACME Company's patent.
  
  --
  If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
  Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
4. Re:Dang it. I'm confused. Remind me again... by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-03-21 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  No, I think the major banks and the world economy have this patent now.
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
5. Re:Dang it. I'm confused. Remind me again... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  This talks about *obvious* applications of laws of nature.
  It is like patenting that water falling down releases its potential energy as kinetic energy. What you can patent is a new hydrodam turbine blade construction and shape that capture said movement with a given efficiency.
  You can't patent that the basic physical principle behind the transistor, but you can patent your implementation of a transistor.
  You can't patent process that your body metabolizes medication or how the medication works. What you can patent is the medication itself.
  IANAL, but this is rather clear, common sense judgment. The purpose of courts is to interpret laws - laws are not black and white. This judgment draws a gray line in patent laws on the shallow end of the innovation pool.
6. Re:Dang it. I'm confused. Remind me again... by Trepidity · 2012-03-21 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  The the opinion discusses that, since it's at the heart of the case. The key issue is that natural processes and abstract ideas aren't patentable, but processes or methods applying them may be, if the application involves something significant in its own right. However they found that in this case the application consisted of basically the natural law, combined with instructions to doctors to use the natural law, which was too trivial an application. As the opinion argues:
  
  ...to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words “apply it.”
  In this specific case:
  
  Prometheus’ patents set forth laws of nature --- namely, relationships between concentrations of certain metabolites in the blood and the likelihood that a dosage of a thiopurine drug will prove ineffective or cause harm. [...] While it takes a human action (the administration of a thiopurine drug) to trigger a manifestation of this relation in a particular person, the relation itself exists in principle apart from any human action. The relation is a consequence of the ways in which thiopurine compounds are metabolized by the body --- entirely natural processes. And so a patent that simply describes that relation sets forth a natural law.
  The question before us is whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe these natural relations. To put the matter more precisely, do the patent claims add enough to their statements of the correlations to allow the processes they describe to qualify as patent-eligible processes that apply natural laws? We believe that the answer to this question is no.
  Incidentally, the opinion is actually pretty clear and seems to "get" it, at least on this particular point. Contrary to usual practice when reading patent-related court opinions, I did not either: 1) fall asleep while doing so; or 2) feel the need to yell at the monitor.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
7. Re:Dang it. I'm confused. Remind me again... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  IANAL but I think there is a difference between a discovery and an invention. In an invention you use a gene to do something new. In a discovery, you just decode the genome to get the gene or identify the gene that causes some disease. If you insert the gene in another creature such as a bacteria and use the bacteria to generate a hormone or material which can be used to fight disease, then you have an invention.
  As I understand it, in math, there are proofs which are logical arguments for the correctness of a conclusion. The conclusion is not not patentable as it is a discovery. Each step in the proof may be interpreted as a conclusion. In math, there are also multiple algorithms/procedures for accomplishing a task which are patentable. No one can patent the conclusions of the algorithms/procedures just the use in accomplishing the task.
Finally! by aglider · 2012-03-21 05:35 · Score: 1

Someone is starting using common sense. And the brain as well.

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
1. Re:Finally! by Matt_Bennett · 2012-03-21 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. Can't do that. Common Sense is copyrighted.
2. Re:Finally! by Anarchduke · 2012-03-21 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry but Common Sense entered public domain a long time ago. The very latest it could have been copyrighted was 1879.
  
  --
  who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
The one that's abandoned? by Theaetetus · 2012-03-21 05:37 · Score: 1

Does this mean we can finally get a review for the patent on swinging sideways on a swing? The patent in question...
... was abandoned years ago.
Re:big money buys politicians by TaoPhoenix · 2012-03-21 05:41 · Score: 2

I want to play the Collectible Card Game about Politicians! You can spend Manna/Money, you can tap and un tap your "political resources".
Let's hear it for Wizards of the Coast!

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Cherry picking SCOTUS news by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:44 · Score: 1

In other Supreme Court news, the EPA will have to tolerate challenges to its rule over private property `owners.' The Supreme Court ruled the EPA can not (effectively) prevent property owners from challenging EPA rulings by assessing massive ($30k/day) fines while the cases are being adjudicated.
Yay SCOTUS.
I'm shocked it was unanimous by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:48 · Score: 0

I would have thought the cranky dissenters would have ruled "No government is going to tell ME I can't violate the laws of nature!"
1. Re:I'm shocked it was unanimous by Nutria · 2012-03-21 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  That's because your first, second and third thoughts are to blame Republicans for each and every calamity known to man.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Math and software patents by Weaselmancer · 2012-03-21 05:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

Math is the first thing I thought of when I read the headline. Math!
How many software patents are simply applied math?
We may have found a slippery slope that works in our favor for once.

--
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
1. Re:Math and software patents by NortySpock · 2012-03-21 08:22 · Score: 2
  
  How is this different than saying something like: "Mechanical Engineering is only applied physics, and physics is only applied mathematics, and mathematics are natural laws*, so you can't patent that" ?
  * I've heard that disputed on the basis that mathematics relies on assumptions (axioms) and do not in and of themselves represent natural laws.
2. Re:Math and software patents by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  Math is the first thing I thought of when I read the headline. Math!
  How many software patents are simply applied math?
  All of them.
3. Re:Math and software patents by excelsior_gr · 2012-03-21 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's not that simple.
  For one, the ruling is only against the patents that are an application of a law of nature. Math is not a law of nature, it's a tool for putting the laws of nature on paper. Software on the other hand are implementations of algorithms that are (usually) described using math. They are not "applied math" and the algorithms themselves are not patentable (at least not where I live). Their implementations, however, are. You can circumvent a patent by writing your own implementation of the algorithm.
4. Re:Math and software patents by StormReaver · 2012-03-21 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  How many software patents are simply applied math?
  Each and every one of them.
5. Re:Math and software patents by Qzukk · 2012-03-21 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  You can circumvent a patent by writing your own implementation of the algorithm.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents
  Of course that may not apply where you live.
  But then again, who needs a doctrine of equivalents when a patentholder can glaze the eyes of a jury while insisting that their algorithm is the only possible way to do X therefore your system must be using the algorithm. By the time you actually get to give your source code to your competitor to show that your algorithm is different, you're broke.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
6. Re:Math and software patents by excelsior_gr · 2012-03-22 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  In Germany, a device is considered to be equivalent if there is identity between the device and the claimed invention with respect to the problem and the effect, but not necessarily the "solution principle" (the manner in which the device operates).
  So I guess it does apply where I live. I didn't know about this rule though. However, according to wikipedia:
  
  "programs for computers" are not regarded as inventions for the purpose of granting European patents.
  But anyway, you are right. All such laws are not really relevant if you do not have the cash to back your case up.
Of course by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 05:50 · Score: 1

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion yesterday holding that 'to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, a patent must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words "apply it."

Of course you can't just add the words "apply it" to a law of nature to get a patent. Everyone knows you have to add the words "over the internet" or "with a cell phone".
Come on people, this is Patent Law 101!
Re:patenting discoveries? by denis-The-menace · 2012-03-21 06:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Obtaining a patent on a gene (not the process used to find the gene)
is akin to getting a patent on finding a new animal species, finding buried city or dinosaur.
I thought you could not patent facts?

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Why we need this law by Ukab+the+Great · 2012-03-21 06:12 · Score: 2

The anti-evolution people could patent evolution and then claim any teaching of it to be infringement.
1. Re:Why we need this law by gQuigs · 2012-03-21 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  The anti-evolution people could patent evolution and then claim any teaching of it to be infringement.
  Wouldn't they have to admit it's right first? Admitting it is "useful" is a requirement to get a patent. Theories that are wrong, are not usually very useful.
2. Re:Why we need this law by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-03-21 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  I think On the Origin of Species might count as prior art.
3. Re:Why we need this law by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-26 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  Funny enough, the only thing the patent office uses as prior art initially is other patents. Basically you can get a patent on almost anything that isn't already covered by a patent so long as it is not so glaringly obvious that it cannot be dressed up in leagalease to sound important. Its isn't until a patent is challenged in court that an actual search for prior art is attempted.
Re:big money buys politicians by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 06:18 · Score: 0

Would it utilize THPP0 (To hit Patent Portfolio 0)?
I CHANNEL FIREBALL YOUR IDEA FOR 20 by TiggertheMad · 2012-03-21 06:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

you can tap and un tap your "political resources".

With more than a little irony, I'd like to mention that 'tapping' cards was patented by WoTC already: Tap (gaming)

Patents: Advancing the state of the American technology one red mana at a time..

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Recurse: by Alomex · 2012-03-21 06:24 · Score: 1

I hope that this means "high level description of method+implement it" software patents are no longer valid.
Re:common sense by TaoPhoenix · 2012-03-21 06:33 · Score: 1

(Bitter)
Nah, they'll find ways to apply it with a double standard so that the best lawyer still wins.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Can this be extended to Computer Science by jlbprof · 2012-03-21 06:42 · Score: 1

Whereas an algorithm is really a discovery of a natural informational law?

--
I go out of my way to complicate the simple things, so that I can simplify the complicated things.
Given a human's capacity for innovation... by brian0918 · 2012-03-21 07:09 · Score: 1

Apply it. [patent pending]
And sometimes that's the way life works by sirwired · 2012-03-21 07:20 · Score: 1

Yes, discovering natural laws can take a lot of research and effort. But something does not magically become patentable just because it takes work to discover.
This decision most certainly does NOT invalidate chemical process patents. The patent at question was: "Metabolite X is a product of the working dose of drug Y; if you detect X at a certain amount, that's bad." That's it. It's not a patent on how to test for X. It has nothing to do with the creation of Y or X. It's a simple statement of cause and effect. Anyone that measures the metabolite while using the drug would be violating the patent.
A chemical process patent is a different animal altogether. In a chemical process patent you get instructions on how to do things: "You can produce Chemical Z by adding Chemical Y to Catalyst X and heating it to 200C..." This is eminently patentable, and still is after this decision. If you produce Chemical Z with this process, you'll need to license the patent.
The chemical process equivalent of this junk patent would be: "If, when you heat Chemical X to 200C, you detect Chemical Y at 10ppm, X can no longer be used as a catalyst for Z production." It's a useful statement to make, but it's not patentable if the process for producing Z is not itself patentable. All you've done is given hints on how to make a Z factory run better.
It will most certainly stop some commercial research into discovering such relationships. But on the other hand, the lack of such patents also allows research (commercial or otherwise) that simply could not feasibly take place if the patents were allowed to stand.
If Prometheus had developed a unique test for their metabolite, their patent would have been upheld. But giving instructions what as to an unpatentable chemical is good for? Not patentable.
1. Re:And sometimes that's the way life works by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 14:43 · Score: 0
  
  More than that, the chemical process patent generally requires you to do something. In the drug patent, you just sit there and the human body metabolizes on its own.
  If every random lump of lead started spewing sulfuric acid on its own, who would argue that using lead to produce sulfuric acid was worthy of a patent? It's more like patenting "the production of oxygen using chlorophyll-bearing organisms and carbon dioxide".
inventive step by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-03-21 07:21 · Score: 1

You can patent a use of the gene. So long as the use is an inventive step. One that did not exist prior to your patent. So combining the gene with a virus to create a cure is patentable. (provided that step is not obvious to one skilled in the art) Simply using existing techniques to identify the gene and using medical knowledge to propose a known treatment is not patentable.
1. Re:inventive step by SecurityGuy · 2012-03-21 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  That's the part that annoys me. Putting genes into organisms with viruses is bog standard and has been for a long time. That step IS obvious to one skilled in the art. It's even obvious to me, and I am not skilled in the art. I am familiar enough that I've injected those modified viruses into other organisms, but not so skilled that I was the guy making the viruses.
Read the decision... by sirwired · 2012-03-21 07:35 · Score: 1

You can use nature all you want when putting developing a patent. What you can't do is patent nature itself.
Patentable: You can test for drug metabolite X by heating a blood sample to 100C, twirling it around your head, adding unicorn tears to it, and then looking for it to turn chartreuse.
Unpatentable: If you find metabolite X in the concentration of 100ppm in the blood a 150lb unicorn, it's tears won't grant eternal life.
or, in the grand Slashdot tradition of car analogies:
Patentable: A new fuel formula consisting of Unicorn Tears as an octane booster.
Unpatentable: The statement: "Anybody claiming they put unicorn tears in their gas tank to make the car go faster is an idiot."
Is the following program a mathematical proof? by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-03-21 08:04 · Score: 1

Sit, Rollover, Play Dead, Good Boy
In justice by Weatherlawyer · 2012-03-21 09:53 · Score: 1

Maybe he's the bad one of the 9 Monkeys. Judge Peters perhaps?
So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 10:29 · Score: 0

Do laws of nature include laws of mathematics? If yes, do laws of mathematics include mathematical algorithms? If yes, would that invalidate software patents?
1. Re:So.... by synthespian · 2012-03-26 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  No.
  There's your answer (mathematics is not a science).
  
  --
  Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
you haven't thought this through by dhammabum · 2012-03-21 12:51 · Score: 1

It would be chaos if natural laws or facts were patentable. Imagine a researcher discovers some new natural law governing a particular biochemical transformation occurring in white blood cells. They patent the discovery, then demand payment from each person having white blood cells that exhibit this law for a license to use the law. Preposterous.

--
I am not a robot. I am a unicorn.
If only they'd done this 15 years ago... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 00:25 · Score: 0

...and included "via computer"
Re:'tapping' cards was patented by WoTC by TaoPhoenix · 2012-03-22 16:42 · Score: 1

Actually, I'd let Wizards have the CCG patent if push came to shove, I was there for the start of MTG and the innovation exploded from the card concept, combined with the idea of (sometimes) good quality custom art for every card, to produce some 20,000 total cards by now.
"I've long since retired, I gave my cards away..." - but that style of strategic thinking is what I apply to IP news stories today. It is the Black Lotus-Time Vault concept - one idea is so subtle that it looks like it does nothing, the other reeks of abuse but the creators hope that it will somehow not become a Pandora's Box. Together, total hell results. (And other more direct combos.)
I look at stories and I'm wailing, "can no one else see that you combine this law with the one from two days ago to get a total disaster?!"

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Nokia C2-03 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-25 18:36 · Score: 0

I have a Nokia C2-03, and while you can unlock it by sliding it open to reveal the keypad, there is a physical sliding switch at the side which allows me to unlock it without revealing the keypad.
http://st2.gsmarena.com/vv/pics/nokia/Nokia_C2-03-all.jpg
It's the ridged switched in the third picture.
(Posted anonymously because the Slashdot login page has broken again.)
Wow wow wow! What a historic day! by synthespian · 2012-03-26 10:43 · Score: 1

Wow! The Supreme Court of the United States has done something historic, that will - as a collateral - promote worldwide scientific collaboration in search for cures!
No more will researchers have their hand tied because of the genetic patent trolls!
This is great day for the medical sciences!

--
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts