Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Invalidates Patent For Being Software Patent
ciaran_o_riordan (662132) writes The US Supreme Court has just invalidated a patent for being a software patent! To no fanfare, the Court has spent the past months reviewing a case, Alice v. CLS Bank, which posed the question of "Whether claims to computer-implemented inventions ... are directed to patent-eligible subject matter." Their ruling was just published, and what we can say already is that the court was unanimous in finding this particular software patent invalid, saying: "the method claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention," and go on to conclude that because "petitioner's system and media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea, we hold that they too are patent ineligible." The End Software Patents wiki has a page for commenting the key extracts and listing third-party analyses. Analysis will appear there as the day(s) goes on. Careful reading is needed to get an idea of what is clearly invalidated (file formats?), and what areas are left for future rulings. If you can help, well, it's a wiki. Software Freedom Law Center's website will also be worth checking in the near future.
Please let this lead somewhere good.
the court was unanimous
How did that happen?
About damn time!
We need someone who is familiar with the law to explain this to us techies. PJ we need you!
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
There's no way this happened on purpose, something must be wrong.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
A unanimous decision, authored by the most conservative voice on the court (Thomas) with a concurring opinion by one of the most liberal (Sotomayor). If this were the beginning of April, I would say this story was a prank. Yeah, it doesn't completely kill software patents, but it does seem to mortally wound the "business process + software = patent troll profit" problem that is plaguing software development. This is a good day for the judicial branch. It's a good day for the USA.
Wish you were here.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
So, this means computer generated things can't be patented? IE: Skynet won't be able to patent the terminator.
The ruling is clear, just implementing an idea, like 1click payment, is not good enough for a patent. The implementation needs to add substance to the idea. For example, a video codec based upon a new approach requires more than a generic implementation (i.e. can be done by anyone) and can be patented. A 1Click payment system, however, requires little more than a generic implementation to function and not subject to patents.
So, that leaves something like 1-Click subject to patent claims as a "business method", but according to the above ruling, there is an argument that it lacks sufficient substance as a method to be patentable.
Thus, someone needs to attack "business method" patents and obtain a similar ruling.
Sorry, all you've got is me.
If anyone can help, I've been building this wiki for five years now without a break:
http://en.swpat.org/
(And I'm working on campaigns against software patents since 2003.)
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
I am willing to bet PJ passively reads Slashdot. If this is so and you read this, we need you back now please. Now more than ever is the clarity of your legal analysis needed. I admit that I am being completely selfish in asking.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
this isn't a software patent, it's a "business method" patent. the latter is what was just dealt with by the SCOTUS.
here's the claim that was representative before the court:
you see any software or computer in that claim, you dumb motherfucker?
While not an expert in this particular case, the holding seems pretty clear - you can't patent an abstract idea and the mere implementation of one does not violate an non-patentable solution. The analysis points out that there is not unique thought or design process involved to protect and the mere following of steps previous outlined does not make something patentable.
"Where is my mind?"
Wait'll they patent being born...
Thomas didn't invalidate the patent "for being a software patent." He invalidated it because it was just an abstract idea that was going to be implemented on a computer. This is key - if a patent involves the union of an abstract idea and a computer and the union is novel, etc., it will be upheld. This is NOT, repeat NOT, giving courts permission to start invalidating software patents just because they are software patents. That idea is based on a total misunderstanding of the opinion.
So you mean it might be safe to poke one button on a coke machine and purchase a Coke again without worrying about Amazon's lawyers showing up behind you? Whoa!
If I can use an existing software language to implement your 'patented' idea, then you shouldn't be able to patent that idea. Otherwise, you are restricting my right of freedom of speech (code is copywrite-able). Just like Stephen King can not prevent someone from writing a book about a car that gains sentience and starts killing people, you should not be allowed to prevent me from writing software that does whatever it is you have obtained a patent for. You do have copy write on your code and I shouldn't be allowed to steal your code.
The prior art is the software language, the compiler and the general purpose computer.
Using a computerto create and maintain “shadow” accounts amounts to electronic recordkeeping—one of the most basic functionsof a computer. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U. S., at 65 (noting that a computer “operates . . . upon both new and previously stored data”). The same is true with respect to the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances,and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]” previously known to the industry. Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 4). In short, each step does nomore than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
I think the above is one of the most important parts of the ruling. Basically stating that your patents stores data, or calculates something won't make it patent elligible if it wasn't patent elligible to start with. You could extend similer thinking to internet patents when talking about "well-understood, routine, convention activiteis"
It was invalidated because the process it describes is super super old. They only thing they added to the old process was using a computer. So if you invent something actually new. Then you can patent that. But "old idea + computer" is not patentable.
If something's not new, it's invalid under 35 USC 102. If something is obvious, it's invalid under 35 USC 103. Both of these would apply to "old process + computer", and the patent should have been invalidated on those grounds...
But, you have to prove that it's an old idea with some evidence in the form of prior art. And because SCOTUS can't do their own prior art searches, even though they knew it was an old idea, they couldn't invalidate it under 102 or 103... So, instead, they turned to 35 USC 101, and said that this was not a patent eligible method because it was directed to an "abstract idea"... But what's an abstract idea? According to Thomas, anything super super old, like you said. But that's what the other statutes are for.
It's the right outcome - the patent was clearly invalid - but for the wrong reason.
Given the ubiquity of computers, see 717 F. 3d, at 1286 (Lourie, J., concurring), wholly generic computer imple - mentation is not generally the so rt of “additional featur[e]” that provides any “practical a ssurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Mayo , 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8–9).
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
I mean, the stupid Arithmetic Coding patent is what killed bzip and replaced it with the less compact bzip2 using Huffman coding.
What about FAT royalties?
At least according to Ars this is much less. It's just about killing specific kind of SW patents. Crucially, it still allows patents that "improve the functioning of the computer itself".
A summary of the decision:
1. [We have long held that] Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” and are not patentable.
2. Restricting such an idea and applying it in a particular domain also is not patentable, long established.
3. This is an abstract idea -- and a well-known one in your industry at that.
4. Applying it "on a computer" is trying to patent it in a restricted domain, and thus not patentable.
5. quo novus ordo et tu Brute seclorum GT 9-0 FO
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The quotes sure make it seem like the patent was invalidated for being one of those patents which is nothing more than a wish list of features, with no specific information as to an actual implementation. In other words, a marketing description masquerading as an invention.
I've long thought that so many patents of the past 20 years were like this, especially software patents, and that invalidating these would be a great first step, even if we don't manage to get rid of software patents. So, although it seems like the patent was NOT invalidated for being a software patent, it is still cause for great celebration, because it establishes a precedent for invalidating the worst kinds of software patents--and those awful, non-specific, overbroad crap patents are far more of a problem than clear patents on specific techniques.
I've often used this analogy: under the current patent regime, instead of RSA getting a patent on their particular public/private key crypto implementation, the first person (I forget who that was) to think up the concept of using a "trap door" function to create a public/private key system would have patented that idea, without having to bother with actually providing an implementation, and would have essentially owned (for 20 years) all the implementations which later researches, including RSA, did the hard work of actually inventing. So while you may think the RSA patent was a bad idea, it was nowhere near as bad as things got later, and frankly I could live with the RSA kind of software patent.
http://www.fosspatents.com/201...
Make sure you read his biography to get a sense of where he's coming from in this debate.
The Supreme Court has held that "abstract ideas" can't be patented, but then has deliberately refrained from defining what an "abstract idea" is!
In the latest Alice decision, they write: "In any event, we need not labor to delimit the precisecontours of the “abstract ideas” category in this case. It is enough to recognize that there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement at issue here. Both are squarely within the realm of “abstract ideas” as we have used that term."
So you can't have "X", where "X" is undefined.
... Supreme Court has upheld the patentability of software concepts, while setting limits: Companies can't patent a mere abstract idea on a computer, but can patent software ideas that advance or improve upon existing ideas.
http://recode.net/2014/06/19/s...
File your infringement claims against the banks and wall-street. If it was CLS Bank Vs. Alice you fucking know right well it wouldn't have turned out the same.
Do you mean that I can't take some age-old idea, process or system, add "on the Internet" or "with a computer" to it and patent it?
Dog-walking on the Internet sounded so promising too.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
(( It's looking like misleading story headlines are a /. tradition?))
This happens to be a software patent, but this doesn't say all software patents are now invalid.
"The Court has long held that 101, which defines the subject ...
matter eligible for patent protection, contains an implicit exception
for ‘ “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.
'In applying the 101 exception, this Court must distinguish
patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity,
which are ineligible for patent protection, from those that integrate
the building blocks into something more"
The patent was about applying a long known economic practice on a computer.
Merely putting it on a computer was not innovative and hence no patent.
This doesn't say much about actually inventing a new algorithm that is only practical on a computer.
(Like quick sort, LZ78, or FFT)
Presumably, if the algorithm is judged to a fundamental building block of human ingenuity, then no patent can be granted.
If it is just a great innovation, patent.
So I guess a software patent has to walk down a narrow path between
too obvious and
too useful to society as a fundamental building block to permit a patent monopoly?
Perhaps a good test for eliminating things is does the algorithm already show up elsewhere, for example in math or nature.
Since cryptographic and compression algorithms are mathematical in nature, would the "on a computer" apply to them so any cryptographic and compression related patent is invalid?
I know the headline is correct because Gene Quinn is hopping mad. Quinn makes a living by obtaining software patents and always says he can draft around any limits imposed by the courts, but here's what he's saying today:
"an intellectually bankrupt opinion ... will render many hundreds of thousands of software patents completely useless ... On first read I donâ(TM)t see how any software patent claims written as method or systems claims can survive challenge."
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014...
I didn't want to trust my own reading, but I knew it was a big victory when I read Quinn's reaction.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
For anyone that wants to troll a patent autorny that has his feelings hurt over this, go here: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014...
In what can only be described as an intellectually bankrupt opinion, the Supreme Court never once used the word “software” in its decision.
Hahahahahahaha... had tears in my eyes reading that.
I sincerely hope that Quinn is right this time and that it can't be drafted around.
...they invalidated it for being just an "abstract idea". Yes, it's easier to fool yourself that you have an invention when all you have is an abstract idea and your expression is in software, but there is a difference. It's harder for something machined or welded to be merely an abstract idea, true.
(code is copywrite-able).
Copyright, as in the right to copy, which belongs to the copyright owner
"Hardware patents are really the same way: a system of gears, levers, and cams placed in a certain order create a pair of timed shuttles that can weave fabric at high speeds."
Sure. And the way patents were applied to physical machines, what you just mentioned is not patentable, while (at least before today) courts kept ruling the computer equivalent was.
There is no patent controlling high speed mechanical weaving machines. There are a number of patents on high speed mechanical weaving, but they tend toward very specific innovations, tricks that allowed manufacture of a comb or a reed or an electric motor or what have you that was superior for this specific application. And the disclosures are specific enough to allow someone to read the application and implement it.
In software, we do see patents that appear to cover much broader scopes, more analogous to what you said; "a system of gears, levers, and cams placed in a certain order create a pair of timed shuttles that can weave fabric at high speeds" and boom you own all mechanical weaving for the next 50 years. Without doing anything but combining the idea of weaving, which humans have been doing for thousands of years, with mechanical engineering, which only really took off a few centuries back and is much more recent.
Notice that disclosure here, the price you are supposed to be paying for the patent*, does not really help anyone trying to build such a device, not the way that for instance US2993130 will actually enable you to build a special kind of electric motor and also to understand exactly why that sort of motor is so much better for use in an electric loom than the ones everybody had been using before it.
The software equivalent to US2993130 is imaginable, and it's quite possible it exists, but I do not believe I or anyone I know has ever seen it in the wild.
"There's nothing wrong with software patents."
Well regardless of whether or not you believe they should be allowed, there's a huge problem with them legally, even if we appear stuck for another generation before the people that simply do not understand it finally die and are replaced.
And that's the fact that software is math and the law firmly and clearly states math is not patentable.
There are all sorts of slick and sophisticated arguments that very highly paid patent lawyers have come up with to try and deny this, but of course they are all completely full of crap.
Every bit of software that has ever existed, or ever will exist, is a number. A computer does absolutely nothing other than read a number from an input device and based on mathematical rules output a number to an output device in response. The complete contents of your hard drive is a number. The program that knows how to communicate with your videocard is a substring of that number, and that letter to aunt martha you saved and never sent is another substring of that number. When you turn the computer on, a number is read from a specific point on the hard drive, and input to the cpu, which in response sends out more numbers, which cause more numbers to be read from various devices and input in turn. This is all the computer does, all day, all night, it is all it is capable of doing.
*- Patent lawyers may want to think that their fees, and the fees of the patent office, are the price you are supposed to pay for patents, but in reality the price is supposed to be letting everyone else in on the 'discovery' of something you could have otherwise exploited as a trade secret.
Clearly not the case with software patents where people routinely file patents quietly and just wait for companies to independently invent what they describe so they can sue.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Essentially, what happened here is that the S.Ct. once again backed away from inserting itself into the patent debate. Its decision was in line with PTO guidelines and with current interpretations of patent law. It is certainly valid to patent a software algorithm, as performed by a computer, embedded into a computer system, or packaged as a software product. What is not valid is to try to make an unpatentable abstract concept patentable by simply stating that it is "performed by a computer." The same is true, and has always been true under US patent law, for abstract ideas that could be "performed in one's mind or with pencil and paper." You can patent a method of using a computer to retrieve data from a database -- a method that would be prohibitively complex without a computer -- but not a method of using a computer to select the first file from a list of a thousand files.
Despite the anticipation for this holding, the S.Ct.'s opinion is conservative, and enacts only minor changes in the interpretation of the law -- changes that might just as well be considered to be clarifications that are in line with prior opinions.
If you're looking for some sea change, look elsewhere. And, honestly, a sea change of declaring software algorithms unpatentable is not going to happen. Aside from the fact that method patents have a centuries-long tradition in this country, there is no way that what are certainly millions of software patents -- the overwhelming majority of which are undeniably valid - would be declared unpatentable in one fell swoop. I mean, could you imagine? Apple, Microsoft, and Google would be out of business in two years. As well as every videogame company on the planet.
Isn't there a better source to link to than the "Software Freedom" association? Aside from the fact that this is a group with a partisan bias of the highest order, the amazingly confused article on that site seems to have been written by someone who didn't even bother to read the opinion.