Slashdot Mirror
(Highly Divided) Federal Circuit Opinion Finds Many Software Patents Ineligible
ais523 writes "The Federal Circuit has divided CLS Bank vs. Alice Corp., a case about various sorts of patents, including software patents. Although the judges disagreed, to a lesser or greater extent, on the individual parts of the ruling, more than half decided that the patents in question — algorithms for hedging risk — were ineligible patent matter, and that merely adding an 'on a computer'-like clause to an abstract algorithm does not make it patentable. Further coverage is available at Groklaw, or you can read the opinion itself (PDF)."
There is no line. Algorithms were never meant to be patented. If you're using an algorithm, and you don't want other people to know what you're using, then it's a TRADE SECRET. Funny thing though, is that anyone can decompile your software, and uncover your trade secret. So, what happened is, everyone tried to get their not-so-secret secrets to be covered by a patent.
It's a corruption of the system. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
There is no line. Algorithms were never meant to be patented.
35 USC 101: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Algorithm: A process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, esp. by a computer.
I'd say it's pretty clear that algorithms were meant to be patented, provided they were new and useful and met the other conditions of the patent act.
It looks to me like the judges are finally deciding not against software patents in general, but patents of the type "doing X, but on a computer" or "doing X, but on a smartphone". The judgement is basically that you cannot patent something that's already patented, or is a natural law, or is an abstract concept not specific to any particular application, just because you describe it in an unusual way or put it in a new context, i.e. "turning a page, but on a touchscreen instead of an actual page" or in this particular case, "hedging risk, but by a computer algorithm instead of by bankers". Also not allowed would be "the browning of grain-based spongy material through local application of heat", also known as "making toast".
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
And I completely agree. Software should be treated like a recipes. People who put the time in to figure out how something is cooked can easily make a generic version. People still pay for the good versions of things because everything else that goes into the product is better.
at least patents, unlike copyright, still have reasonable expiration dates.
35 USC 101: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Hm. Hmmm. There's this talk about "machine", "manufacture", and "matter" that makes me think whether "process" meant actually meant "technological process" (including, say, the chemical ones). When exactly was this law written? Before or after Turing? :-) Given the fact that algorithms are essentially very complex equations, one would expect that mathematics would have been mentioned if that were the case.
Ezekiel 23:20