Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Limits Patents Based On Laws of Nature

Posted by Unknown on 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.'"

15 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Patent by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

    So I can't patent my method of not falling off the Earth through application of gravity?

    1. Re:Patent by osu-neko · · 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."
    2. Re:Patent by SuperAlgae · · 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.

    3. Re:Patent by SuperAlgae · · 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.

  2. Cool ... by gstoddart · · 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 · · 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 X0563511 · · 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...
    3. Re:Cool ... by gstoddart · · 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.
    4. Re:Cool ... by wintercolby · · 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
    5. Re:Cool ... by wintercolby · · 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
  3. Swinging Sideways Review? by Bob9113 · · 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
  4. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

  5. Math and software patents by Weaselmancer · · 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.
  6. Re:nothing and everything's a law of nature by dtmos · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is why all notions of property are arbitrary.

    Could you give me my wallet, there in your pocket?

  7. Re:nothing and everything's a law of nature by Crag · · 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.