Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Orders Do-Over On Key Software Patents
Fluffeh writes "It seems that the U.S. Supreme Court has an itch it just can't scratch. A patent granted to the Ultramercial company covers the concept of allowing users to watch a pre-roll advertisement as an alternative to paying for premium content and the company is demanding fees from the likes of Hulu and YouTube. Another company called WildTangent, however, is challenging Ultramercial's 'invention' as merely an abstract idea not eligible for patent protection. Add to this a recent ruling by the Supreme Court restricting patents — albeit on medical diagnostic techniques — and you get into a bit of a pickle. The Supreme Court is now sending the Ultramercial case back to the lower courts for another round, which doesn't mean that the court disagrees with the original ruling, but rather that it thinks it is a patent case that is relevant to the situation and they want to re-examine it under this new light."
This nonsense is crushing innovation. It's one more in a long line of examples of how we need to reevaluate how we govern ourselves.
And don't forget the hot and steamy floater!
Why hasn't Slashdot done a story on this yet? Oh yeah, because Microsoft buys all the ads on here.
If you thought having IE built in to the OS was bad just wait for Windows 8 where Flash is integrated into the OS!
Try as I might, I seem to be unable to get a patent on Euclid's algorithm.
Palm trees and 8
How is that even possible? What if someone had patented the concept of "auctions" or "transportation of persons other than by foot"?
How is the concept of computing something substantially different from an algorithm that computes something? Patents are supposed to be on physical inventions, not abstract ideas. The formal, "When run on a computer," clause does not mean a math^H^H^H^Hsoftware patent is somehow not a patent on an abstract idea.
Palm trees and 8
Saying "let's think about this a little more" is a step in the right direction.
A few months ago, I accepted what at first appeared to be a very simple job: remove a virus from someone's computer. Given the fact that I owned a PC repair shop (and I still do) and had over 15 years of experience, I was confident that I could complete the job in a timely manner without any complications along the way. Little did I know, however, that accepting this job would spiral my life into a nightmarish den of anguish and uncertainty.
First, I tried booting up the PC. When Windows finally loaded, it became apparent that this was no ordinary virus; it was a merciless monstrosity of a virus that would stop at nothing to ruin your entire life. However, despite this, I bravely pressed on and attempted to combat the virus. "I absolutely will not let a mere virus scare me off!" I thought.
After numerous unsuccessful attempts at removing the virus and after exhausting every single option to combat viruses that I had, I finally realized that the situation was absolutely devoid of hope. This was a virus more fearsome than any other, and it was simply impossible for someone with my abilities (skilled as I was) to fight against it alone. Even reinstalling the operating system completely didn't help. I quickly sank into a pit of depression and despair.
Being that I was extremely stressed due to my numerous failures, I began verbally abusing my wife and kids a few days after I received the job. This situation soon worsened when I began resorting to physical abuse in order to relieve some of my anger. Eventually, after not being able to withstand my daughter's constant moans and whines any longer, I locked her in the basement in order to retain an ounce of my sanity.
That's when I had a stroke of genius: "If I can't fight this nightmare alone, then why don't I call in the World's Greatest Minds?" I immediately contacted the World's Greatest Minds and pleaded that they examine the computer. To my delight, they accepted the proposal, collected the computer, and began their experiments.
After weeks of trial and error, numerous experiments, and many failures, the World's Greatest Minds had at last reached a conclusion. They contacted me by phone and told me that this, being no ordinary virus, called for extreme measures. They quite vehemently recommended the use of MyCleanPC to combat the virus and destroy its very existence once and for all. "MyCleanPC will completely eradicate the virus without a single problem," they enthusiastically told me.
As soon as I got the computer back from the World's Greatest Minds, I installed MyCleanPC, ran a free scan, and then sat back and watched in awe as it totally eliminated the very same virus that I had spent weeks trying to get rid of in mere seconds! MyCleanPC had accomplished a feat that nothing else in existence could have accomplished! I was positively astonished by MyCleanPC's miraculous performance.
What was my daughter's response, you ask? "MyCleanPC is outstanding! My dad's client's computer is running faster than ever! MyCleanPC came through with flying colours where no one else could! I recommend that you use MyCleanPC right this minuteness to fix all of your problems!"
MyCleanPC totally cleaned up my client's system, and increased his speed! As a computer repair professional, I highly recommend that you use MyCleanPC to fix all of your problems. That's not all: The World's Greatest Minds also recommends MyCleanPC for all of your computer repair needs. By using MyCleanPC, you're ensuring that your gigabits will be running faster than ever, that all viruses will vanish off of your computer in seconds, and tha
If Ultramercial has a patent covering forced-viewing advertising, doesn't that cover virtually every DVD made?
Isn't the concept of an advertisement running before you see content as old as radio and TV? Didn't I have to watch Timex commercials to see the TV shows they sponsored?
I think this is just another example of "Same old stuff, but now on the Interwebs!"
Unless there is an actual physical product. patents are inappropriate. Copyright a presentation of an idea, but patenting a thought is a path to policing thought... and wasting time having the courts arbitrate such.
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
Then we need people to sue the USPTO. I mean big, honking, megabucks style, at a bare minimum to get back their fees for defending against utter abominations like this ludicrous "invention".
Yes, I know that will come out of the public purse and into the pockets of - FSM help me - lawyers, but what other option is there?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I never thought I'd agree with WildTangent on something. They have been the bane of freelance PC support techs for a long time and I wish they would just shrivel up and die. But I guess self-interest and politics can make strange bedfellows.
If the only input is data and the only output is data (rather than running a motor controller or servo or something) then I would argue that we're talking about an algorithm, i.e. pure math.
The fact that it runs on a computer is beside the point, you could in theory do it with pen and paper or in your head.
This is a fairly common procedural follow-up to a Supreme Court ruling that might have implications for other cases. The situation is roughly like this:
1. Cases A, B, and C, on related but not identical subjects, file for Supreme Court review of a lower-court decision.
2. The Supreme Court hears A, and issues a significant new ruling. This ruling might have implications for B and C, but they weren't considered by the Court, because the Court only heard A.
3. Now the question is, what should the Supreme Court do with B and C, whose appeals are still pending? They could accept the cases for hearing and decide them, too. If they were on exactly the same issue as A, the Court could've consolidated A/B/C and issued one ruling. But in the more common case where they have potential but not 100% overlap, the Supreme Court doesn't usually want to hear all three cases. Instead they pick a representative one, in this case A, and issue a ruling. But if A overlaps with B/C, it could lead to an injustice if they just reject the B/C appeals.
4. There is basically a new question: in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in A, are the lower-court decisions in B and C still correct, or should they be modified?
5. The principle is that the lower courts are supposed to look at such questions first, so the Supreme Court orders that lower courts reconsider cases B and C in light of the recent opinion in A. It's up to the lower courts then to look into whether their original decisions should now be modified. Then once they issue a new ruling, this can be appealed to the Supreme Court again.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I wonder why this application was not initially examined in class 725, but was instead searched only in business methods class 705?
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Business process or software patent or even math are not considered in the original meaning useful art, but rather the amelioration of an industrial or artisanal process. The extension to business process (not involving the industrial or artisanal processes) such as we see today is not something which was meant back in the 18th or even 19th century.
Time to dump the entire patent system.
Everything is obvious and patents don't make them more so. Unfortunately patent clerks are granting patents on obvious stuff because they're rushed and unimaginative.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. It is the implementations that matter. Eliminate the patent system and let everyone compete in the open market.
If patents were eliminated then people, e.g., corporations which are made of people, would have to move on things and not squat. It would also kill the trolls.
Disclosure: I'm an inventor and manufacturer with many things I could have patented but don't because I do not agree with the idea that ideas should be proprietary and exclusive.
Certainly, it seems like this and similar patent cases are just begging to be shot down; while it doesn't appear that any of us really knows what an "abstract idea" is exactly, it's increasingly clear to numerous observers that tying a process to the internet should not necessarily transform an abstract process into a patentable invention.