Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Lawyers: Software Patents Gradually Fade, Even in Land of the Fee

Hash: SHA1

The heaps of coverage of this /HUGE/ event seem to suggest that software
patents /ARE/ affected.

USPTO does not like killing business method patents?

,----[ Quote ]
| The New York Times has an article about the recent Bilski decision. The USPTO 
| has requested a change in the title of the article. 
| [....]
| If Mrs Jennifer Rankin Byrne could point out where she sees the term computer 
| in the Bilski decision, that would help to back her statement. 


Reactions to the Bilski decision begin to roll in

,----[ Quote ]
| Not being a US patent attorney and not possessing any expertise in US patent 
| law, I am not in a position to comment on the CAFC’s Bilski decision handed 
| down yesterday. However, I do know a few people who are, so I have been in 
| touch with them to get their reactions. Below is what I have had so far. I 
| will continue to add to these until the beginning of next week (3rd/4th 
| November will be the cut-off).     


In regards to In re Bilski

,----[ Quote ]
| On the key question of when information becomes a machine, the ruling does 
| provide some clues: “First, [...] the use of a specific machine or 
| transformation of an article must impose meaningful limits on the claim's 
| scope to impart patent-eligibility. [...] Second, the involvement of the 
| machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be 
| insignificant extra-solution activity.” For more on extra-solution activity, 
| have a look at my law review article (PDF) that focuses heavily on the idea.      


US court narrows scope for business method patents

,----[ Quote ]
| "While looking for 'a useful, concrete and tangible result' may in many 
| instances provide useful indications of whether a claim is drawn to a  
| fundamental principle or a practical application of such a principle, that 
| inquiry is insufficient to determine whether a claim is patent-eligible," it 
| said.   


Bilski: Almost the Big One

,----[ Quote ]
| The big question is what effect, if any, this decision will have on the 
| current referral of a “point of law” concerning software patents by the 
| President of the European Patent Office (EPO) to the EPO “Enlarged Board of 
| Appeal”, something I wrote about earlier this week. It would be ironic if, at 
| a time when the US courts begin to move away from patenting software “as 
| such”, the EPO started allowing precisely that through a relaxation of its 
| own rules.       


So are software patents dead or not?

,----[ Quote ]
| My opinion is that it's going to get harder and harder to patent anything. Of 
| course there will be a big push back from business, so this won't happen over 
| night, but I think the concept of patents will eventually disappear entirely.  


US Court Throws Out Most Software Patents

,----[ Quote ]
| The IT Examiner also observes that "Microsoft has a problem" and that "Much 
| of the patent portfolio of some of the world's biggest software companies has 
| become worthless overnight, thanks to a ruling yesterday by the US patent 
| court."   


Court Reshapes Patent Reform Debate

,----[ Quote ]
| In a ruling with huge implications for the technology sector, the U.S. Court 
| of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Oct. 30 pure software or business 
| method patents that are neither tied to a specific machine nor change 
| something into a different state are not patentable.   


In Huge Shift, Court Ruling Effectively Denies Software-Only Patent Rights

,----[ Quote ]
| The case originally centered on a patent for "a method of managing the risk 
| of bad weather through commodities trading"—which falls more under 
| the "business process" bucket, but the same ruling effectively makes 
| patenting a specific software process impossible. The previous ruling allowed 
| such patents, so long as computers were involved and the process produced 
| a "useful, concrete, and tangible result." This ruling rejects that premise, 
| favoring instead an older test that only allows patents for things involving 
| an actual machine or a transformation of a tangible object into a different 
| state.        


Professor Collins: In re Bilski: Tangibility Gone “Meta”

,----[ Quote ]
| Although they are both legitimate questions, this short comment addresses 
| neither whether there is a legitimate statutory basis for this test nor 
| whether Supreme Court precedent should be interpreted so as to mandate (or 
| even support) this test. Rather, it focuses solely on the criteria that the 
| court offers to draw the line between patentable and unpatentable 
| transformations. The Federal Circuit has added a new twist to the tangibility 
| test that has for many years played a role in determining patent-eligibility: 
| the tangibility test has gone "meta." The tangibility of the formal data that 
| is actually transformed by a method of processing information is not relevant 
| to patent-eligibility, but the tangibility of the things that the data is 
| about—the tangibility of the informational content of the data or the things 
| to which the data refers—now appears to be dispositive.           


Bilski: What It Means, Part 1 -- Red Hat on What It Means for FOSS

,----[ Quote ]
| means to everyone: You can't get patents any more on a pure mental process. 
| You can no longer patent a process that you can think through all in your 
| mind. In other words, abstract ideas are not patentable. There has to be 
| either a particular machine or a transformation in the process. So 
| pure "ideas" or "mental processes" are over. That means most business methods 
| patents are no longer valid because they are outside the parameters of what 
| is eligible for patenting. In simple terms, it means this:      
|     The End for the stupidest of the stupid patents. 
| Yay! It means that the tide is turning. There could still be an appeal of 
| Bilski, and even without one, there are ways to chip away at this decision's 
| new standard for patentability, to try to get over the new turnstile, so to 
| speak, and strategies on how to do that have begun already. I've spent the 
| days since the decision issued researching for you, so I can explain Bilski 
| to you. There is too much material for just one article. So, I'll break it up 
| into parts. My purpose is to make sure you understand fully, so you can be 
| helpful with your ideas and so you can explain this issue to others, so they 
| understand what is involved for FOSS. If there are parts you don't 
| understand, ask. If I don't know the answer, I can ask someone.         


US patent ruling bodes well for tech

,----[ Quote ]
| The case in question was rejected because the patent at issue was a process 
| not tied to a "machine", which is one standard for patentability. 
| [...]
| "The standard articulated in this case should limit the outrageous business 
| method and software patents that we have recently seen, without undermining 
| the incentive to innovate in these areas."  


In re Bilski and the future of business method patents

,----[ Quote ]
| Duffy stressed that the patent at issue in State Street, the 1998 decision 
| that gave the OK to software and business method patents, would be fine and 
| dandy under the new test—it's just the test itself that changed. The court 
| maintained the "core holding" of State Street, said Duffy, merely changing 
| the "verbal formulation" required. (And the number of BM patents that will 
| still be strong?—Many! Most! Almost all!)      


CLE: How to Draft Software Claims under Bilski

,----[ Quote ]
| Going forward, I do not believe that these limitations will have a 
| significant impact on a skilled practitioner's ability to patent software  
| innovations.  


Patent Court: You Can No Longer Patent Thin Air

,----[ Quote ]
| In essence, the ruling means that business ideas in and of themselves aren’t 
| patentable. In addition to Amazon’s “one-click” patent, which is the concept 
| of purchasing something via credit card by just clicking a single website 
| link, Friendster’s patents on social networking also come to mind as being 
| unpatentable based on this judgement. That patent covers a “system, method 
| and apparatus for connecting users in an online computer system based on 
| their relationships within social networks” and a “method of inducing content 
| uploads in a social network,” amongst other claims.       


Court limits 'business method' patents


Federal Circuit Enforces Limit on Business Method Patents

,----[ Quote ]
| The result: While the court did not categorically exclude business method 
| patents, it held fast the idea that any method, whether business-related or 
| not, must be tethered to a machine or some sort of physical transformation, 
| says Stephen Maebius, a partner at Foley & Lardner.   

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index