The Post-Bilski Era Gets Underway 94
bfwebster writes "A set of pharmaceutical process patents for 'evaluating and improving the safety of immunization schedules' (Classen v. Biogen et al.; see US Patents 6,420,139; 6,638,379; 5,728,385; 5,723,283) were held to be invalid due to unpatentability. The decision was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but was upheld with a terse citation to In re Bilski (which decision we discussed here). Here's the entire text of the appeals decision: 'In light of our decision in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment that these claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dr. Classen's claims are neither "tied to a particular machine or apparatus" nor do they "transform a particular article into a different state or thing." Bilski, 545 F.3d at 954. Therefore we affirm.' It will be interesting to see what happens when these same standards start getting applied to software-related patents."
It's really not a huge change (Score:5, Informative)
There are only a small amount of applications this effects and it's very easy to overcome, although I unfortunately can't go into much more depth than that.
In other words... (Score:5, Informative)
It's a virtual invention and gets no protection. Patents after Bilski pretty much have to be tied to a particular machine or change something in meat-space.
Re:News for lawyers, Stuff that matters. (Score:1, Informative)
It might help if the given link actually worked. Prior slashdot discussion here: Federal Circuit Appeals Court Limits Business-Method Patents [slashdot.org]
Basically, in re Bilski is a Federal Court decision which stated that in order to be patentable, the invention must be (in the words of the summary) "tied to a particular machine or apparatus [or] transform a particular article into a different state or thing." In effect, in re Bilski invalidates a range of software and business patents.
The point of this story is not that the Classen v. Biogen result has changed anything legally, or is necessarily interesting to Slashdot on it's own, but that the Bilski decision is now being used to invalidate other patents.
Re:That sidesteps the issue. (Score:1, Informative)
Software is a written work, but I firmly disagree that software should be covered by copyright and not patents.
Copyright the creativity in a work. Copyright does not cover *functionality* or utility in a work. (The same is true for design patents.) So, for example, if I reverse engineer your program without looking at your source code, I won't be violating your copyright, even though I've stolen your idea and am now making $$$ off of it. An example of where you'll be able to get me for a copyright violation is, on the other hand, if I'm burning copies of the CD containing your binaries or source code and selling the CDs.
There are actually a number of really interesting cased in copyright law that explore the line of where something is "creative" vs. "functional" and so what should be protected by copyright. See, for example, Brandir International (about the "ribbon rack"--you've probably seen them around) (www.ribbonrack.net). Copyright is not good for protecting software because the line between creative and functional causes all kinds of issues and makes defining the scope of what is protected blurry. And unpredictable.
Utility patents, on the other hand, cover inventions with utility. So if you have a cool idea and patent it, and I reverse engineer it w/out looking at your source code, I am not allowed to rip you off.
(Also, as another side note, the printed matter doctrine in patents governs why you can't get a patent on, for example, the plot to a move.)
This won't be the last time that Jane Q. Public doesn't understand the law.
Re:Irrelevant. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the Wikipedia page for Bilski quotes the court as having said:
"We leave to future cases the elaboration of the precise contours of machine implementation, as well as the answers to particular questions, such as whether or when recitation of a computer suffices to tie a process claim to a particular machine."
So I think the question remains open.