SCOTUS Wallops Software Patents, Again

Posted on June 20, 2014 by Robert Pogson

SCOTUS again reminds anyone who will listen, that merely doing something via computer is not a patentable invention.“The method claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Since few if any computer programmes can pass this test, this is yet another huge blow against software-patents. This is just one of several layers of filters which software-patents fail to pass. Others are that abstract concepts are not patentable, and stuff that lacks novelty are not patentable. OMG! The Supremes were unanimous! World, quit being inhibited by software patents. Three of the justices even set out a couple more reasons why the subject “invention” was ineligible: “There is no suggestion in any of th[e] early [English] consideration of process patents that processes for organizing human activity were or ever had been patentable” and “As in Bilski, however, I further believe that the method claims at issue are drawn to an abstract idea.”(Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer). So, the Supremes were against the patentability and more against the patentability than split on both sides of the fence. Talk about piling on… Get on with finding, creating, modifying and distributing information to your heart’s content without fear. If a patent-troll comes calling, show him the door.

ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to SCOTUS Wallops Software Patents, Again

  1. Robert Pogson says:
    June 21, 2014 at 9:52 pm

    oiaohm wrote, “We really need the patent office to apply SCOTUS.”

    There was a time when USPTO really had experts in every field review patent-applications. I know. I once applied for a US patent and was rejected for prior art that no one else seemed to know about. USPTO found it. That was in the 1980s. It seems now the default operation is to approve the patent application or to play ping pong so that the application gets approved eventually if reworded enough times. The software-patents seem to be quite evil. USPTO should not be granting patents on the wheel but they do every time they issue a software-patent. It’s as if USPTO have no expertise in software at all. Perhaps they all use that other OS and don’t have any ideas about how or why software is created… 🙁 (God M$ gives us software. If you give us software you must be god-like. Sure we will give you a patent…)

  2. oiaohm says:
    June 21, 2014 at 5:38 pm

    We really need the patent office to apply SCOTUS. Wait if they apply SCOTUS they make less income. Ok we need to require patent offices to refund all patent payments on patents proved invalid. So now auditing patents become critical.

  3. oe says:
    June 21, 2014 at 4:38 pm

    Seems a start, but all of the software, gene, and pharmo patents should be driven dead with stake through the heart.

  4. dougman says:
    June 20, 2014 at 11:33 am

    At one time, Jobs so far ahead of the pack he did not care if anyone was copying him, as all artists steal. But, after while he got greedy and then it became attack attack attack!.

    The world of software should just do away with patents altogether, disallow software patent suits, and developers – industry just get to innovating and quit feeding the damn lawyers.

  5. kurkosdr says:
    June 20, 2014 at 10:51 am

    Good news, no doubt, but the catch is you must prove the patent is “generic”. Which means very good news for lawyers who will be called to argue whether a patents is “generic” or not…

Leave a Reply