Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court To Review Software Patents
New submitter chrylis writes "SCOTUSblog is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted an appeal in Alice v. CLS Bank, a case in which the Federal Circuit ruled haphazardly that the particular patents in question were invalid but did not address the issue of software patents generally. 'The case will provide a new test of the Patent Act’s most basic provision — Section 101, which broadly outlines what kinds of inventions are patentable. One of the long-standing exceptions to the types of inventions mentioned in that section is that an abstract idea can never be patented. That issue arises frequently these days, especially with rapidly developing technology in computer software. The EFF wrote a summary of the issues in the case when it was before the Federal Circuit this spring. The case files are also available."
I'm so glad that the fate of software patents in the US is being left up to a bunch of old geezers who probably can't figure out how to publish their legal opinions online without the help of their IT department.
IAAPA (I am a patent agent)- My take on the matter is that software patents pass the threshold for patent eligibility, but not for patentability, which is quite different. Most software-implemented subject matter is certainly patent-eligible, but ought to be struck down under 35 U.S.C. 103 (non-obviousness). Courts have said that 101 is a threshold inquiry, and in my opinion I don't see why slashdotters would have a problem with striking down software patents not because as a class of subject matter they are ineligible, but because the vast majority are obvious.
The case involves Alice Corporation who holds four patents originating in the 1990s of which was for "a computerized system for creating and exchanging financial instruments such as derivatives." These patents were challenged by CLS Bank International in 2007. The district court ruled summarily for CLS in that none of patents were valid. The Federal Circuit initially reversed the lower court; however, the full panel (en banc) voted 7 out of 10 to affirm the district court but also issued 5 separate concurring and dissenting opinions.
This confusion was noted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in its amicus brief:
" . . . the Federal Circuit has failed to implement a workable standard—or, frankly, any standard at all—as to what computer- and Internet-implemented inventions are patentable. The resulting legal instability has driven up the already-ballooning costs of patent litigation . . ."
In my opinion, it appears that main patent simply added "on the computer" to an existing process, namely in an business transaction between two parties, there is a third party that ensures that payment is made and is facilitated. The computer made the transaction faster and more automated as noted by Judge Lourie in his opinion.
“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility."
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Expect yet another 5-4 ruling in favor of big business.
Which big business? Where are big businesses interests on both sides of this issue.
Fuck you very much, NSA.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
the current Supreme Court doesn't have a good track record of siding with the 'Little Guy' (*cough*Cittzen's United *cough* Voters Rights Act*). Maybe it's just the libtard in me but I don't have high hopes were going to see an entire class of 'property' invalidated... :(
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'd give them somewhat more credit than that. They definitely made the right call in Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (ruling that genes couldn't be patented), even though they had no knowledge about biology.
The fact that they're willing to hear this case makes me somewhat optimistic; if they truly didn't understand or care about software patents, they wouldn't have gotten involved. The worst they can do is maintain the status quo, which is what would happen if they didn't intervene.
I'd expect this much if anything. SCOTUS cannot fix the software patents. It is not even clear what a "software patent" is. IANAL, but the way I understand the patent law, there is absolutely no difference. If you have a gizmo that does A, B, and C, then you can patent it, and how exactly it meets these claims in terms of technology is irrelevant. The patent law itself is oppressive: it infringes on our right to free expression, while providing no discernible benefit to the public. Only the lawmakers can fix this clusterfuck, and they can do so trivially, by gradually shrinking the protection term, giving the manufacturers some time to adapt. But they, of course, lack the will to do so, since they respect the opinions of plutocrats way more than those of the general public.
RMS also advocates a way to get to the same goal in discrete steps, by making patents unenforceable in certain fields (like the medical field or the general purpose computing field). The precedents exist: the surgeons are allowed to ignore patents while curing people. This is much better than defining "software patents" within the law, since any such definition will probably be circumvented by technological means. Rent-seekers could simply inject enough non-software payload into a device and patent it anyway.
Actually how a gizmo does A,B,C is critically important for a patent. As another device can do A,B,C, but in a different way, and it would not violate the patent.
The overall problem with software patents is they define the What (A,B,C) but not the How. So any implementation that accomplishes goals A,B,C is suddenly in violation.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Contrary to Judge Moore's worries (second link in the article) this would open the floodgates of development of software, and revitalize the industry. SCOTUS has had years of watching the mess this made in industry, and the endless litigation over trivial ideas.
They may well overrule CLS Bank.
No longer could a company sit on a minor IDEA, cast into code, and then patented simply because it was code. They would have to continue to innovate, and perhaps market a product instead of launching lawsuit after lawsuit. Look around at the software patents that are holding back progress on a number of fronts. Just try to come up with a new Codec (like VP8) and watch the trolls band together (MPEG LA) to create a patent pool to go after your product.
I suggest the Audio and Video industries alone would make more progress in the first 4 years after striking down software patents than they have for the last 20 years.
Moore worry that no research on new computerized functions would take place because they couldn't be patented is about as well founded as saying no one would invent a new recipe for Chicken Soup because it couldn't be patented.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Really? Because as soon as VP8 was hinted at, and before it was actually released, MPEG LA immediately put out a call to form patent pool to attack it. BEFORE its specs were even released.
Does that sound like a group of people simply seeking an easier way to cross-license? Or does it seem like a Troll?
It took the US DOJ looking into MPEG LA's practices before they backed down.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
IAAPA (I am a patent agent)- My take on the matter is that software patents pass the threshold for patent eligibility, but not for patentability, which is quite different. Most software-implemented subject matter is certainly patent-eligible, but ought to be struck down under 35 U.S.C. 103 (non-obviousness). Courts have said that 101 is a threshold inquiry, and in my opinion I don't see why slashdotters would have a problem with striking down software patents not because as a class of subject matter they are ineligible, but because the vast majority are obvious.
IAAPatent Attorney, and I think you're absolutely right - many of these claims that get struck down under 101 should really have been struck down under 35 USC 102 (novelty) or 103 (obviousness), but that requires searching for prior art and making a prima facie case, and as you know, that's haaaaaaard. It's a lot easier to simply say "I'm sure there's art out there for it... but rather than look for it, I'll just wave my hands and say 'abracadbr- er, abstract idea' and then I can dismiss this case, and the outcome is correct, even if the process is backwards." And, because many Slashdotters are pragmatic engineerin' folks, they frequently care about the outcome more than the process: as long as Mr. Bilski doesn't get his hedge fund patent, then who cares whether it's rejected under 101, 102, 103, 112, or some other high-falutin' number?
But the problem is, part of pragmatism is predictability: if we can't tell ahead of time whether some patent is statutorily valid or invalid, then, pragmatically, how do you make business decisions? It'd be like writing a program, having the compiler tell you it won't run, but never being given any clues or indications as to where your error was. The result is the same - the program crashed - but it doesn't give you any ability to write proper programs in the future, or predict ahead of time whether a program will fail or not.