Slashdot Mirror
Software Patents Poised To Make a Comeback Under New Patent Office Rules (arstechnica.com)
Ben Klemens writes via Ars Technica: A landmark 2014 ruling by the Supreme Court called into question the validity of many software patents. In the wake of that ruling, countless broad software patents became invalid, dealing a blow to litigation-happy patent trolls nationwide. But this week the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proposed new rules that would make it easier to patent software. If those rules take effect, it could take us back to the bad old days when it was easy to get broad software patents -- and to sue companies that accidentally infringe them.
The Federal Circuit Appeals Court is the nation's highest patent court below the Supreme Court, and it is notoriously patent friendly. Ever since the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling, known as Alice v. CLS Bank, the Federal Circuit has worked to blunt the ruling's impact. In a 2016 ruling called Enfish, the Federal Circuit ruling took a single sentence from the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling and used it as the legal foundation for approving more software patents. This legal theory, known as the "technical effects doctrine," holds that software that improves the functioning of a computer should be eligible for a patent. A version of this rule has long held sway in Europe, but it has only recently started to have an impact in U.S. law.
This week, the Patent Office published a new draft of the section on examining software and other potentially abstract ideas in its Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP). This is the official document that helps patent examiners understand and interpret relevant legal principles. The latest version, drawing on recent Federal Circuit rulings, includes far tighter restrictions on what may be excluded from patentability. This matters because there's significant evidence that the proliferation of software patents during the 1990s and 2000s had a detrimental impact on innovation -- precisely the opposite of how patents are supposed to work.
The Federal Circuit Appeals Court is the nation's highest patent court below the Supreme Court, and it is notoriously patent friendly. Ever since the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling, known as Alice v. CLS Bank, the Federal Circuit has worked to blunt the ruling's impact. In a 2016 ruling called Enfish, the Federal Circuit ruling took a single sentence from the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling and used it as the legal foundation for approving more software patents. This legal theory, known as the "technical effects doctrine," holds that software that improves the functioning of a computer should be eligible for a patent. A version of this rule has long held sway in Europe, but it has only recently started to have an impact in U.S. law.
This week, the Patent Office published a new draft of the section on examining software and other potentially abstract ideas in its Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP). This is the official document that helps patent examiners understand and interpret relevant legal principles. The latest version, drawing on recent Federal Circuit rulings, includes far tighter restrictions on what may be excluded from patentability. This matters because there's significant evidence that the proliferation of software patents during the 1990s and 2000s had a detrimental impact on innovation -- precisely the opposite of how patents are supposed to work.
I saw an opportunity to be technically correct, and found out things had changed since I last looked at them. There was once a sort of "fair use" exception for "philosophical experimentation," but that has since been narrowed to oblivion by the same Federal Circuit. https://www.patentdocs.org/201...
This isn't pro-corporate - this is a self licking ice cream cone for the patent application process. This is in the interest in maximizing the "business" done by the USPTO and maximizing the revenue for everyone associated with it. Corporations just take advantage of this - they are not the drivers of this policy. Government organizations take on a private business mentality and do everything they can to expand, grow, etc. In theory, if a portion of the government becomes obsolete, it would be removed. In reality, that unit looks for some other way to survive, grow, etc. Once you create an office, good luck getting rid of it.
Money is exchanged to file a patent.
The amount of money exchanged can be maximized by allowing as many things to be patented as possible because then patents will be filed for everything no matter how ridiculous.
The company I work for has a patent on a "Kinetic air defense" system for aircraft (US15092537/US9671200B1). The patent consists of a cartoon (!) showing a stealthy looking aircraft with a, well, cartoon box that can pop! out and deploy thingys. A "control system" will guide the thingys to the other thingys trying to take out the aircraft. Absolutely no details on the control system, math, physics whatever, are covered - this is the same level of sophistication as what the average boy in 4th grade doodles (at least, for those destined to be engineers). I'm embarrassed to see this associated with the company - how do the engineers who filed this sleep at night? Oh yea, that is right - "leadership" ties promotions to patents, so every time someone at the company wipes their ass they file a patent for it!
I actually do some really cutting edge stuff for these idiots and it drives management nuts I won't file anything (they want you to file stuff even when the government paid for it!). Of course I'm many years behind on a promotion due to this but that is why we have resumes (for now there are still some interesting things to work on)...