Slashdot Mirror
Judges Debate Patents and If New Software Makes a Computer a "New Machine"
First time accepted submitter ectoman writes "A third party steps into a financial transaction to make sure all parties exchange funds at the same time and as expected. Can you patent this process? What if the third party is a computer? Rob Tiller, vice president and general counsel for Red Hat, details a recent court ruling on this very matter—one that has critical implications for the future of software patents, and one that divided the judges involved. Tiller writes that: 'The judges mostly agreed that the idea of managing settlement risk with a third party was abstract such that by itself it could not be patented. They differed, though, on whether using a general purpose computer for managing settlement risk meant that the patents avoided invalidity based on abstraction.' Interestingly, some judges suggested that a computer becomes a 'new machine' every time it loads different software."
I know I'll be flamed for this because everyone here is against software patents, but...
The distinction between a physical machine and a physical machine running software is somewhat pointless. Almost any software can be converted into a physical machine. Using a hardware H.264 encoder/decoder or a hardware crypto card is really no different from doing those things in software. If you want to make a distinction between physical objects and software for patent purposes, the logic part of computers needs to be considered software despite the fact that it's been manifested as a physical object. But general purpose computers running software aren't any different than purpose-built computers executing the same logic in hardware.
35 USC 101 requires that a claimed invention be directed to patent eligible subject matter: a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter (it also requires that the invention is useful). The courts have decided that these categories are very broad, but don't include "abstract ideas" (though that term is never defined), laws of nature, or natural phenomena.
If the claimed invention passes that low threshold for 101, 35 USC 102 requires that the invention must be new or novel. That's a higher bar, but not a huge one - if I'm the first person to make a red car and claim that in a patent application, that's new, even if blue cars existed.
If the claimed invention passes that threshold, then 35 USC 103 requires that the invention must be nonobvious. The red car is obvious if blue cars existed, even if no one has ever made a red car before.
So, for example, if some piece of software causes a computer to paint the screen in red paisley and that's never been done before, it's new... but it's obvious and still patent ineligible.
The problem is when these get confused or conflated into a single requirement, because obviousness and novelty require evidence, while subject matter eligibility does not. And so, you get cases like CLS or Bilski where the judges want to invalidate the patent because it's stupidly obvious, but they have no evidence on the record... so they declare it an abstract idea and invalid. In particular, here, the judges started carving out everything from the patent claim that made it non-abstract, declaring it irrelevant, until the only thing left was abstract. The outcome may be the right one, but it's for the wrong reason - it's like finding a murderer guilty because you hate his face. Maybe he was actually the murderer, but you're finding him guilty for the wrong reason.
"Do you know any off-hand or can you find one or two?"
I don't have case citations at hand but you can look them up. In particular, find copyright cases surrounding player piano rolls, in which the courts ruled that it made absolutely no difference whether copyrighted works were used to control a machine.
John Philip Sousa was famously involved in some of those suits.