Slashdot Log In
Supreme Court Review of Bilski Heats Up
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Aug 11, 2009 07:30 PM
from the do-patent-leather-shoes-really-reflect dept.
from the do-patent-leather-shoes-really-reflect dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The Supreme Court's review of In Re Bilski (discussed here numerous times) is heating up, having attracted no less than 44 friend-of-the-court briefs from almost everyone with a stake in the patent system. Patently-O provides a nice summary of who is arguing against Bilski. The two questions before the Supreme Court are whether or not a process must satisfy the particular machine or transformation test, and whether this test improperly excludes many business methods in spite of the wording of 35 U.S.C. 273, which specifically allows business-method patents. So far, the case has attracted legal filings from nearly every large company or group whose patents might be threatened. You can read briefs from Yahoo, IBM, Borland, Dolby Labs, the BSA, and many others, even one from some guy claiming to speak on behalf of the State of Oregon."
Related Stories
[+]
Courts May Revisit Software Patents 259 comments
An anonymous reader writes "It looks like the courts may finally be gearing up to overturn the ruling that opened the floodgates for both software and business model patents. It's been nearly ten years since the US courts decided that business methods were patentable and that most software could be patentable — and we've all seen what's happened since then. With all the efforts to fix the patent system lately, it appears that the court that originally made that decision may be regretting it, and has agreed to hear a new case that could overturn that ruling and restore some sanity to the patent system."
[+]
Federal Circuit Appeals Court Limits Business-Method Patents 73 comments
Zordak writes "The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has just issued its much-anticipated opinion in In Re Bilski [PDF]. This was a re-visit of the State Street issue of what constitutes patentable subject matter (including whether software and business methods are patentable). In summary, the court has affirmed and strengthened the 'machine-or-transformation' test, upholding the patent office's rejection of claims on a method for hedging risk in the field of commodities trading. Although the court refused to exclude software patents categorically, it is likely that the reasoning of this decision will be used to reject many software patents (note that some of the dissenting judges would have completely overturned State Street and tossed out all software and business method patents). Although not as sweeping as some had hoped for, it is certain that this decision, along with the Supreme Court's KSR decision last year, will lay a difficult mine field for those who want to patent software and business methods."
[+]
Bilski Patent Case Appealed To Supreme Court 175 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The landmark ruling of a few months ago that limited patents to inventions which include a machine or which transform physical matter has been appealed up to the Supreme Court. 'On the one side of this controversy... are those... who argue that patents must be available to encourage innovation in devising new ways to conduct business in the global information-based economy, including encouragement for new ways of digitizing business methods. On the other side are consumer advocacy groups and free-market devotees who worry that patent monopolies could tie up methods of creative thought processes, including teaching, judging, creative writing, making medical judgments, or picking juries (some current, real examples of claims).' The Bilski decision has already had an impact on potential software and biotech patents, in addition to the obvious limitations on business method patents. The petition (PDF) argues that the 'machine-or-transformation' test conflicts with the broad language of the patent statute and with congressional intent. It's entirely within the Supreme Court's discretion to take the case or not, but for now it looks like the issue is far from decided."
[+]
News: Judge Invalidates Software Patent, Citing Bilski 252 comments
bfwebster writes "US District Court Judge Andrew Gilford (Central District of California) granted a summary judgment motion in DealerTrack v. Huber et al., finding DealerTrack's patent (US 7,181,427) — for an automated credit application processing system — invalid due to the recent In re Bilski court decision that requires a patent to either involve 'transformation' or 'a specific machine.' According to Judge Gilford's ruling, DealerTrack 'appears to concede that the claims of the '427 Patent do not meet the "transformation" prong of the Bilski test.' He then applied the 'specific machine' test and noted that, post-Bilski the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has ruled several times that 'claims reciting the use of general purpose processors or computers do not satisfy the [Bilski] test.' Judge Gilford analyzes the claims of the '427 patent, notes that they state that the 'machine' involved could be a 'dumb terminal' and a 'personal computer,' and then concludes: 'None of the claims of the '427 Patent require the use of a "particular machine," and the patent is thus invalid under Bilski.' DealerTrack apparently plans to appeal the ruling. Interesting times ahead."
Submission: Supreme Court Review of Bilski Heats Up by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Cato Institute Critique of Software Patents 242 comments
binarybits writes "I've written an article for the free-market Cato Institute about how patents impede innovation in the software industry. It points out that people tend not to realize how vast the software industry is. It's not just Google and Microsoft; virtually every organization has an IT department producing potentially-infringing software. Organizations as diverse as J. Crew and the Green Bay Packers have been sued for patent infringement. It's crazy to expect all these organizations to worry about potential patent infringement. Hopefully the Supreme Court's Bilski decision will lead to new limits on software patents."
[+]
US Supreme Court Skeptical of Business Method Patents 160 comments
Trepidity writes "The US Supreme Court held oral argument Monday in Bilski, a business-methods patent case that might also have important implications for software patents (We have previously discussed the case several times). The tone of the argument appears to be good news, as the justices were very skeptical of the broad patentability claims. They even brought up a parade of absurd hypothetical patents quite similar to the ones Slashdotters tend to mention in these kinds of debates. Roberts surmised that 'buy low, sell high' might be a patentable business method, Sotomayor wondered if speed-dating could be patentable, Breyer questioned whether a professor could patent a lesson plan that kept his students from falling asleep, and Scalia brought up the old-time radio soap opera Lorenzo Jones, featuring a hare-brained inventor with delusions of getting rich." Patently O has good blow-by-blow coverage of the day's proceedings. Official argument transcripts will be up soon, they say.
[+]
Recipient of First Software Patent Defends Them 392 comments
Arguendo writes "Martin Goetz, who obtained the first software patent in 1968, has penned a thoughtful defense of software patents for Patently-O. Goetz argues that there is no principled difference between software and hardware patents and that truly patentable software innovations require just as much ingenuity and advancement as any other kind of patentable subject matter. The Supreme Court is of course currently considering whether to change the scope of patentable subject matter in the Bilski case, which we've discussed before." Does it weaken Goetz's argument that his description of the software lifecycle harks back to the waterfall days and bears little resemblance to current development practice in open source and/or Internet contexts?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
A wiki for Bilski and other swpat issues (Score:5, Informative)
I'm documenting this here: swpat.org/wiki/Bilski [swpat.org]. All help appreciated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A wiki for Bilski and other swpat issues (Score:5, Informative)
You have always been mistaken. The purpose of the patent system is to encourage investment into research and development, and thus encourage and promote human progress and invention. Allowing ideas to be patented slows innovation, while allowing the patent of an invention which has required much time, effort, and or money to develop, provides a financial incentive for for R&D, and thus encourages innovation.
Thus patents should protect inventions which require a significant amount of research and development, not ideas. To quote Thomas Jefferson [let.rug.nl]:
If you wish to correct your ignorance, I can suggest the book "Math you can't use" as an excellent text on the subject.
Parent
Incorrect (Score:3, Insightful)
"Allowing ideas to be patented slows innovation,"
A) You can build on a patent, i.e. innovate
B) After about 20 years* anyone can make it.
The only thing it slows is distribution of the product because the holder can control who can make it. IT doesn't NOT IN ANY WAY prevent new products based on it from being patented.
"Thus patents should protect inventions which require a significant amount of research and development, not ideas.
No, and Yes.
No, it should not protect products based on how much it costs to de
Re:Novel Ideas (Score:4, Funny)
Copyright protects Novel ideas. Patents protect the Automatic Author machine that produces Novel ideas.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is Reverse Engineering Legal [chillingeffects.org]
Patents are out of control when you can patent "A system for categorizing information in a 'database like' structure for easy retrieval at a later date'". No
Yeaaa. and we independent developers get to see (Score:5, Insightful)
who's the enemy of innovation, open source, new participative pluralist internet culture and freedom, and who is a friend.
the verdict of the masses are silent, but irreversible. and no court can make innumerable developers who can make or break a new web/it tech your friend by force.
Don't hold your breath (Score:2, Insightful)
Better to be a forum troll, than a patent-troll any day of the week.
USPTO has already been taking Bilski into account (Score:5, Informative)
The office has been sending out quite a few 101 rejections based on the district courts decision. This is something that both the Office and the Bar want clearly resolved as the Bar has been very creative in the past few years in claiming what is essentially software only claims.
Parent
Re:Don't hold your breath (Score:5, Funny)
Better to be a forum troll, than a patent-troll any day of the week.
Yeah, who needs yachts to drive on their oceans of money and naked women when we have strangers getting upset over what we think about Linux distros?
Parent
Re:Don't hold your breath (Score:5, Funny)
Better to be a forum troll, than a patent-troll any day of the week.
Yeah, who needs yachts to drive on their oceans of money and naked women when we have strangers getting upset over what we think about Linux distros?
Don't do that. Besides not being very nice, it's quite the waste because you'll just end up having to buy more naked women to drive over.
Parent
Re:Don't hold your breath (Score:5, Funny)
Or as my dad says
" Son, there is no point in being a racist. Most folks are total assholes and will happily give you a reason to hate them personally!"
And I have found no truer words were ever spoken.
Parent
Best quote (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the brief submitted by Mark Lemley et. al sums up my opinion the best.
The distinction on patentable subject matter should be based on the distinction between applied and abstract inventions.
It doesn't get much simpler than that in my mind. If you are patenting an applied method, applied algorithm (read: implementation), applied design (blueprints or machines) etc. then sure, you should be able to patent it. Barring prior art, public domain, etc.
But if all you have is an idea, too bad- do something with it.
I guess the thing that surprised me was, when I was taught about patents back in high school that is essentially what they told me the criteria was all along. Then I grew up & found out how twisted it really is, and then IP and software patents got into the mix, and because the politicians & courts had no clue what they were talking about, managed to hose the whole thing.
Re:Best quote (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the best quote is: a general purpose computer should be considered a "particular machine."
This is the core contention behind the justification of software patents. It incorrectly treats all of the specific coding of any algorithm implementation as irrelevant to the patentable subject-matter, because the algorithm could theoretically be made to run on any Turing architecture.
Anyone who has ever actually implemented an algorithm, much less anyone who has invented one, knows that this is nonsense: algorithms are not implementations, and to be "useful" an algorithm has to be properly implemented in a specific language and, frequently, on a specific machine or limited range of machines, because real computers are not Turing machines. Turing machines don't have interrupts, amongst other things, which is why they are deterministic and mathematically tractable.
Parent
Re:Best quote (Score:5, Informative)
A general tool of almost any kind, used in a different way, is _not patentable_. It's using the tool for what it was designed for, it does not change the physical construction of the machine nor its number of parts nor its general capabilities.
The "actually implemented algorithm" is protected in its specific implementation by copyright, and should not receive the double protection of patent law against writing similar algorithms.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A general tool of almost any kind, used in a different way, is _not patentable_. It's using the tool for what it was designed for, it does not change the physical construction of the machine nor its number of parts nor its general capabilities.
This is not entirely accurate. Suppose there is a patent on Compound X and the patent discloses the use of Compound X as a floor wax. Now suppose someone discovers that Compound X makes an excellent treatment for baldness, which is entirely nonobvious given its prev
Re: (Score:2)
Software patents were created to fill a business opportunity. The absense of that opportunity is not, in itself, necessarily a bad thing because the filing and management and avoidance of infringement of such patents has become amazingly burdensome to developers and to the public.
Worse, many software patents are nonsensical: they act as a barrier to entry to small companies and small scale developers, because larger companies can and do invest in patent portfolios as a basic business practice. The result is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A general tool of almost any kind, used in a different way, is _not patentable_.
A hammer isn't patentable? Of course it is. What you're quibbling over - and why this is going to the Supreme Court - is the definition of a "general tool". Is a hammer a general tool, or a specific tool? It can't be used to screw in screws... So, is a screwdriver a general, or a specific tool? Well, it can't be used to hammer in nails... at least not well. Finally, is a computer a general, or a specific tool? It's not very good at hammering or screwing, after all.
I realize this is all semantic bullshiat,
Re:Best quote (Score:4, Insightful)
A patent on a hammer is fine. A patent that says I can't use it to hammer things a certain way is bogus. I paid money for the hammer. I should be able to use it how I see fit and share that knowledge unencumbered.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The hammer itself is patentable. The new use of a hammer, without fundamental modification to the hammer itself, is not. So now that general purpose computers exist. That's part of what Bilski is revealing: the patenting of usages of tools, without modifying the tool itself, is a serious issue that should block the patent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Evidentally you missed the article on Microsoft getting a patent on using XML as a file format for a word processing document, including certain specific new tags. Yep, they extended the eXtensible Markup Language (and not even in a particularly original way) and got
Re:Best quote (Score:4, Interesting)
Turing machines don't have interrupts, amongst other things, which is why they are deterministic and mathematically tractable.
Just a correction: our computers aren't Turing machines because they have finite memory, not because they have interrupts. Analyzing arbitrary machine code is tractable on a real Turing machine with infinite memory, it's just that any such analysis may not run within the bounds of current computer memories, and even if it could, its runtime or resource consumption may not make the analysis actually useful.
Parent
Re:Best quote (Score:5, Insightful)
But this ignores the constitutional requirement that it promote progress:
Teles AG says:
This is the same argument used in favor of the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act yet at the time the United States was one of very few nations to actually extend copyright to such a length. In this case the U.S. is one of very few nations to support software patents.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But this ignores the constitutional requirement that it promote progress:
It is not obvious that business method patents hinder the progress of the useful arts, and merely stating it does not make it so. But if you have a good argument for why business methods are contrary to the constitutional purpose of patents, then by all means compose and submit an amicus curiae brief in support of the Respondent. The due date is October 2nd. You don't have to be an attorney to submit an amicus brief on your own behal
Re:Best quote (Score:5, Insightful)
> It is not obvious that business method patents hinder the progress of the useful arts
You declare ownership of a new business process. Because of this you can prevent
EVERYONE ELSE WHO DOES BUSINESS from benefiting from that new process. Alternately
you can FORCE EVERYONE to waste money licensing your process. Alternately, companies
lose the motivation to innovate because they might be sued by some jerk like you.
Every patent allows the patent owner to cause trouble for everyone else for the next 17 years.
It's far better that Dell can't patent build to order rather than being prevented from
inventing it in the first place because a bunch of bogus process patents choked him when
he was a startup.
Software patents are a clear counterexample to your rubbish idea that the other side
of the argument is just making empty claims.
Patents exist to encourage inventors to disclose useful information, not to enable large
corporations to be bridge trolls.
The most frightening idea in all of those amicus briefs is the idea that medical procedures
might be patented. That's about the most horrific and destructive idea you could possibly
come up with. Doctors invent because they take their oath to Hypocrates seriously, not because
they identify with Crassius Maximus.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You declare ownership of a new business process. Because of this you can prevent EVERYONE ELSE WHO DOES BUSINESS from benefiting from that new process.
Suppose someone invents a new mechanical device and patents it. The patentee can now prevent everyone else from making a business out of making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing the patented device. In that sense, all patents declare ownership over a new business process. Business method patents are just applied economics in the same way that
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, and you know better. It could be something a lot of people were already doing, but if they had not documented their process in a way the patent office understands as "prior art" (which, as we've learned, is pretty much nothing), the patent can STILL stand. 35 USC 273 states this EXPLICITLY: If I was
Re: (Score:2)
It could be something a lot of people were already doing, but if they had not documented their process in a way the patent office understands as "prior art" (which, as we've learned, is pretty much nothing), the patent can STILL stand.
The PTO, of course, limits itself to (easily accessible) printed publications, patents, and patent applications because those are all easy to use forms of prior art. But prior use is normally very easy for a defendant in a patent infringement suit to show except when the prio
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, the problem is not that people have been patenting business processes but they have been patenting the end result, the very basics (one-click or how to make purchases on the internet) or the very starting point (the mathematics (algorithms) behind it) of processes.
HUGE difference (Score:3, Interesting)
The huge diference is that you cannot use a TRIVIAL mechanical process and patent it, or even use that p
Re: (Score:2)
But this ignores the constitutional requirement that it promote progress:
Teles AG says:
Do you have a citation for this (that it's "patent laws are only valid if they promote progress" rather than something silly like "patent laws are assumed to promote progress"), that could maybe be added to Wikipedia? It says [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Is there such a requirement? Can you point to case law indicating one way or another? I could easily see there being rulings that "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts" is merely explanatory, and does not impose any requirements on the patent process.
35 U.S.C. 273 (Score:4, Informative)
35 U.S.C. 273 refers to business method patents but *does not* specifically allow them. Whether 35 U.S.C. 273 approves of business method patents implicitly is left as an exercise for lawyers writing supreme court briefs...
Re: (Score:2)
From 35 U.S.C 101:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
From 35 U.S.C 273:
(a) DEFINITIONS.- For purposes of this section- ...
(3) the term "method" means a method of doing or conducting business...
(3) LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF DEFENSE.- The defense to infringement under this section is subject to the following:
(A) PATENT.- A person may not assert the defense under this section unless the invention for which the defense is asserted is for a method.
While business methods are not explicitly defined in the patentable inventions code (that's code 101, part of which I posted above), the code itself is very short and doesn't explicitly define anything.
If the criteria you go by regarding what is patentable is whether or not it was specifically defined in the Patent Code, then the lightbulb was not patentable either, because electronic devices are not specifically defined in the Patent Code. See what I'm getting at? We h
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Based on the section title, I would say that 35 USC 273 has nothing to do with patents being *allowed*:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_273.htm [uspto.gov]
"35 U.S.C. 273 Defense to infringement based on earlier inventor."
This section is defined by the words "defense to infringement", an act that has nothing to do with getting a patent granted. Since proof of this defense shows that prior-art existed for the patent in question, it should actually invalidate any patent that this defense
More amicus briefs to come, probably (Score:5, Informative)
The 44 amicus curiae briefs that have been filed so far are only those submitted in support of the Petitioners (i.e., the inventors Bilski and Warsaw) or in support of neither party. Amicus briefs in support of the Respondent (i.e., the Patent Office) will be submitted after the Respondent's merits brief is submitted, which will occur on or before September 25. Once the merits brief is submitted, amici have 7 days to submit briefs in support of the Respondent.
While I don't expect there to be quite the same volume of briefs supporting the PTO as the Petitioner, there will probably be at least a few.
Here is the the Supreme Court docket for the case [supremecourtus.gov].
Full Disclosure: I work for the team [hoover.org] that wrote the brief of Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty [hoover.org] (he of the Diamond v. Chakrabarty Supreme Court case that established the patentability of genetically modified organisms).
Anonymous Coward (Score:3, Interesting)
FYI -- the Bilski patent application is not considered a "software" patent application. Instead, it is considered a pure "business method" (i.e., a method of performing some business-related task that it not necessarily tied to any specific hardware, e.g., a computer).
If the Supreme Court strikes down the patent under 101, this particlar fact pattern and the resultant decision will not necessarily lead to the death of software patents. However, if the Supreme Court determines that that Bilski patent application is patent eligible, then software will be patentable unless Congress eliminates software patents by law. The reason for this is that pure business methods are considered closer to "abstract ideas," which are not patentable, than software patents since software is always used on a machine (i.e., a computer).
The whole case could turn on the 35 U.S.C. 273 issue. The Supreme Court can rely on some very technical rationale for deciding a case, and one of these is called "statutory construction." One such rule is that a statute will be interpreted so as to be internally consistent such that a particular section of the statute shall not be divorced from the rest of the act. 35 U.S.C. 273 refers to a defences to infringement with regard to business methods. It would appear to be internally inconsistent to have a "business method" be nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 while still provide a defense for someone infringing a business method. If one cannot patent a business method, then one cannot infringe a business method. If one cannot infringe a business method, there is no need for a defense against infringement.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
If it can be proven (and I'm sure it can) that software patents do not promote the progress of science and arts, then this line allows them to basically re-work patent law. Business method patents, software patents and other non-tangible or non-applied patents really haven't done a single thing to promote the progress of science and useful arts. So with that one line, they can perhaps argue that it goes against the constitution to implement patent/copyright law that goes against that.
Re: (Score:2)
Forget it; this argument is a loser. The courts will defer to Congress on that issue. Of course, Congress didn't explicitly authorize the business method patents
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly and genuinely ..... (Score:2)
Imagine some simple algebraic calculation being patentable because the base math numerical system being used is the roman numeral system, which is not simply and directly capable of doing such a calculation.
Now Imagine when software patents will be look back on in hindsight of a corrected navigational mapping software development system.
How are those supporting software patents today, going to be viewed tomorrow? As barbaric?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem is that too many obvious software patents have been granted. Suppose Cooley and Tukey had been the first to figure out the fast Fourier transform (they weren't, but suppose they were). Wouldn't they have been deserving of a patent, had they wanted one?
Please tell me... (Score:2, Interesting)
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Can someone please tell me how software patents are promoting the progress of science/useful arts? There are -many- countries who don't have software patents yet software still comes out of those countries.
There is not a positive thing that has come out of software patents. The quality of software hasn't improved, patent trolls are numerous, oh and because of software patents there are many incompatibilities in software that lead to many, many problems.
Re: (Score:2)
There is not a positive thing that has come out of software patents.
Google was able to rise to dominate search and challenge Microsoft primarily because of its numerous software patents. Without those patents, Microsoft, Altavista, Yahoo, or any other company could have used Page Rank and other algorithms covered by Google's dozens of software patents. Only part of Google's success is its good web design and marketing savvy. A huge part is the fact that it just plain does search better than almost anybod
Re:Please tell me... (Score:4, Insightful)
> Say an inventor comes up with a brilliant new algorithm for efficiently and accurately modeling
> fluids on a computer. There are many possible applications: computer graphics, weather simulation,
> etc. The inventor would like to maximize his or her profit from the invention.
This presumes that the crass entrepeneur is the driver of innovation in software.
Usually it's the exact opposite sort of person that drives software or scientific innovation. The
current patent regime threatens to mire this sort of person in a quagmire of pre-existing and largely
trivial patents. Even if this person were a genuine entrepenuer they would have to deal with the legal
minefield of patents and quite likely would be in a very weak position to deal with hostile potential
competitors with large patent portfolios to club him with.
Necessity is the mother of invention, not greed.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This presumes that the crass entrepeneur is the driver of innovation in software.
The PageRank algorithm on which the Google empire rests was invented by Larry Page and Sergei Brin. They published the algorithm, patented it, and went on to become incredibly successful 'crass entrepreneurs.' Google owns dozens of software patents on key technologies such as its Map-Reduce implementation and AdWords. Few would say that Google is not a driver of innovation in software.
Usually it's the exact opposite sort of
Re:Please tell me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Google's patented search algorithm is not a driver of innovation in software. They have carved out their own niche in searching, in which they stand alone; no one builds on their work.
And if they really have a patent on MapReduce, that's a bad one too. Distributed software has used the general idea since before Google existed. I haven't read their actual claims, however.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft rose to dominance at a time when software was not patentable. That's one of the reasons why Embrace, Extend, Extinguish worked so well:
As opposed to now? I've got news for you, most software companies are still very wary of Microsoft. That's one of the reasons there is so much push to develop for the web using open standards, so as not to get extinguished by Microsoft.
That's true, but then the public would never find out about the invention.
That's a pretty absolute assertion you're making. Do you really believe that software patents are the only way knowledge of software inventions gets transferred/created in our society? And do you really believe that the only thing protecting Google or Amazon from being copie
Why is the focus on patentability of processes? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd rather see submarine patents be got rid of or patent transferability restricted to get rid of the patent trolls and the "patent holding companies".
At least people who come up with these processes, come up with something. The trolls are just in the business of collecting patents and wait for their chance to cash in.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather see submarine patents be got rid of
Submarine patents are no longer a serious issue. Patents now expire 20 years from the date of filing, so keeping a patent application stuck in the patent office forever is a good way to end up with an expired patent, which is not particularly useful. Furthermore patent applications are now published after 18 months, so the world is put on notice fairly early on in the patent application process.
There may be a few submarines left from the pre-June 8, 1995 days,