by sthu11182 on 6/19/14, 2:16 PM with 110 comments
by grellas on 6/19/14, 4:04 PM
That has been happening for a long time now in the patent field as armies of very bright lawyers have found clever ways to concoct patents out of what really should be unpatentable ideas through the art of clever drafting.
Well, this decision gives top-down guidance to judges to cut through such dissimulation in the area of patents and to look at the reality by asking, in effect, "is this really inventive or is it simply a product of the draftsman's craft parading as being somehow inventive." That is the right question to ask in such cases and it should go a long way towards reining in some of the more absurd abuses of recent times.
The case in nonetheless only an incremental step building on solid precedent (as well-assessed by rayiner) and not a radical shift by the Court.
Many had hoped, for example, that this case could be used as a means of delivering a death-blow to all software patents on the grounds that they could all be labeled nothing more than basic mathematical algorithms that happen to apply to a computer. Yet, in its decision, the Court not only did not address this sort of argument but it also carefully emphasized the idea that it was to "tread carefully" in how it might choose to exclude even fundamental "building blocks of human ingenuity" (i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, abstract ideas) from patent eligibility "lest this exclusionary principle . . . swallow up all of patent law." To me, this signifies that the cautious approach signaled in Bilski - that is, that of gradually cutting back on the excesses spawned in the past two decades in the area of patent-eligible subject matter - will continue. So don't hold your breath awaiting any court-driven abolition of software patents generally. That will have to await a legislative solution, if it is to come about at all.
by rayiner on 6/19/14, 2:59 PM
The opinion has three parts:
1) The Court identifies the abstract idea contained in the patent as the general concept of intermediated settlement. (Slip. Op. at 9) The key takeaway here is the discussion about whether an "abstract idea" has to be on the level of a "law of nature" in order to be excluded. The Court says that an abstract idea need not reduce to some fundamental truth that has always existed. It is sufficient for it to be a "fundamental economic practice" or "longstanding commercial practice," like the concept of "risk hedging" in Bilski. (Slip. Op. at 10)
2) The Court looks to see if the patent adds anything more to the abstract idea, and concludes that all it does is describe how to implement the idea in a general computer, in the generic and conventional way. (Slip. Op. at 12, 15) The Court analogizes to Mayo, in which it decided that the claimed method amounted to no more than instructing doctors as to how to use a well-known process for measuring metabolite levels to diagnose their patients. (Slip. Op. at 11) The Court states that the claimed method simply describes how to instruct a computer to perform the abstract idea of intermediating settlement. The Court makes a point of noting that the computer implementation described here is "wholly generic" and that "[i]n short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions." (Slip. Op. at 13, 15)
3) The Court concludes that the "system" claims are no different in substance from the method claims: "But what petitioner characterizes as specific hardware—a 'data processing system' with a 'communications controller' and 'data storage unit,' for example, see App. 954, 958, 1257—is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer will include a 'communications controller' and 'data storage unit' capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims." (Slip. Op. at 16)
by jackgavigan on 6/19/14, 4:08 PM
Part of my day job is figuring out how to go about automating or "electronifying" processes relating to financial trading and risk management. In other words, I look at things that people currently do manually (or decide in their heads) and I figure out how it can be codified into language or an algorithm that a developer can turn into code.
Patents like this (and plenty of similar patents that have been granted[1]) effectively try to claim ownership over the concept of automating what is usually (but not always) a pre-existing business process, using a computer. That's not invention. It's problem-solving. And it's not like the person filing the patent is even solving the problem - they're just patenting the concept of a solution to that problem.
In effect, they're trying to patent my work output. It's like someone filed a patent ten years ago on "Methods and apparatus relating to the matching of people seeking temporary accomodation and householders who are willing to rent out their spare rooms", without ever actually having built implemented it, then popped up when Airbnb came along, saying "Hey, we have a patent on that! Pay up!"
Good fucking riddance.
[1] For examples, see http://www.faqs.org/patents/assignee/goldman-sachs-co/
by spacemanmatt on 6/19/14, 2:39 PM
by notacoward on 6/19/14, 2:48 PM
"claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention"
In other words, start with an idea that's not patentable because it's abstract. Merely specifying its implementation on a computer doesn't make the original idea more concrete or more patentable. Therefore the claim on the idea is invalid, therefore other claims based on that one are too. So what's left?
If the application to a computer is itself both novel enough and concrete enough, then that might still be considered patentable. Is that possible? Isn't the application to a generic computer still basically an abstract idea? Must it be an application to a specific type of computer to qualify? I think questions of this sort are going to be the new battleground. The war continues, but the front has moved in what seems to be a good direction.
Disclaimers: (1) IANAL, (2) I have a bunch of patents both granted and pending through my employer, so this decision might actually hurt me financially.
by revscat on 6/19/14, 2:45 PM
"The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. See ibid. ('There is no specific or limiting recitation of... improved computer technology...'); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28–30. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. See, e.g., Diehr, 450 U. S., at 177–178. Instead, the claims at issue amount to 'nothing significantly more' than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer."
I don't see this decision as being too far removed from previous decisions. Regardless, this is a step in the right direction, and is a(nother) blow against the patentability of abstract ideas, and a blow against the patent trolls.
Separately, no decision on ABC vs. Aereo issued today. Aereo lives to see another day, then. Good.
by mbell on 6/19/14, 3:08 PM
by sanxiyn on 6/19/14, 3:03 PM
"This Court has long warned against interpreting 101 in ways that make patent eligibility depend simply on the draftman's art."
by cbr on 6/19/14, 2:39 PM
by ajb on 6/19/14, 5:15 PM
"In what can only be described as an intellectually bankrupt opinion..."
Wow.
He thinks it will invalidate lots of software patents - not by invalidating software patents per se, but the way they have been written to date. I'm not qualified to give an opinion, but I would be interested to know if that is a mainstream view.
by helper on 6/19/14, 2:38 PM
by higherpurpose on 6/19/14, 3:37 PM
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/19/5824130/7-thoughts-on-the-supre...
Shame they didn't abolish the business method patents at the very least, if not all software patents.
by not_that_noob on 6/19/14, 5:03 PM
The hard part was balancing genuine innovation (from small inventors, pharma, etc.) vs. squashing trolls. This goes a long way toward whacking trolls while leaving in place what the patent system was meant for - the fostering of innovation for the benefit of society. Well played.
by sanxiyn on 6/19/14, 2:50 PM
by wes-exp on 6/19/14, 2:53 PM
by PolemicThoughts on 6/19/14, 2:47 PM
How does this differ from/alter existing law? Is this ruling just a clarification?
by eqnoob123 on 6/19/14, 7:13 PM
by sthu11182 on 6/19/14, 2:25 PM
by zenciadam on 6/20/14, 1:39 AM
by spacemanmatt on 6/19/14, 3:52 PM