Supreme Court Skeptical of Computer-Based Patents

walterbyrd (182728) writes "The case, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, poses huge risks for both sides. If the court upholds the patent or rules only narrowly against it without affecting most others, the problem of too many patents — and patent lawsuits — will continue. In that case, Justice Stephen Breyer said, future competition could move from price and quality to 'who has the best patent lawyer.'"

Comments

COULD move from?

[Anonymous Coward]

COULD move from price and quality to 'who has the best patent lawyer'?

What COULD? How about we accept the reality it's already happened?

Re:COULD move from?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>> COULD move from price and quality to 'who has the best patent lawyer'?

>> What COULD? How about we accept the reality it's already happened?

> It's only happened to a small extent - if patent trolls are protected you can write off the USA as a source for innovation, period.

Sorry, I must disagree. It has not happened to a small extent. It's pervasive throughout all of the US legal system, when combined with bullying by rich corporations. Actually, some victims would rather pay for dubious patents than risk losing lots of money in a legal victory.

It's not just some magical powers that make China advance so fast; entrepreneurs are freer to try new things. Everybody says China only copies the West -- and surely it happens, sometimes very faithfully even -- but they're also experimenting with several innovations in design alone. They have still a lot of things to learn about customer satisfaction, but they succeeded in having a faster innovation cycle.

OTOH, the USA is becoming more and more trapped in legal bureaucracy. And it's not unintentional.

Re:The best the SCOTUS could do is wipe software p

[zarthrag]

I beg to differ. I create things all of the time and have realized that, even with a patent, I'm not rich enough to litigate it.

Re:The best the SCOTUS could do is wipe software p

[lonOtter]

I should add, the only people who think patents should be abolished are people who don't create anything.

It only takes a single example to reveal how untrue that statement is. To say that no authors can disagree with you is incredibly arrogant.

It's also a mere ad hominem, so it's not even logical. Even if someone doesn't "create" anything, that doesn't make their arguments wrong.

Anyone who creates has a different opinion.

Well, how nice of you to decide what everyone else thinks. I'm a software developer and 100% against patents. Am I not a "creator"? Are you going to resort to a No True Scotsman now?

but ranting around about getting rid of them just makes you look ignorant.

I rant about getting rid of them because I value real private property rights (the ability to use your own resources to accomplish some goal, which at present may infringe upon some patent) over monopolies over procedures enforced by worthless government thugs.

I should add, no human being disagrees with me. If you disagree, you're not a True Human.

Re:The best the SCOTUS could do is wipe software p

[ackthpt]

Which effectively meant, it a competitor saw our system at work, copied it and patented it we'd probably be willing to pay them a license fee just to get off our backs

Prior art, surely?

You still have to hire a legal defense to plead Prior Art. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's attorney has already done enough research to tell them how much to hit you for licensing, if they don't want to outright kill you (with an injunction) but are happy to just bleed you to death, while they take the proceeds and fund more IP research to see whomever else they can bully - thus limiting competition - so they don't have to perform better service or offer a superior product. Quite contrary to the spirit of the patent clause in the Constitution, I assure you.