Supreme Court Skeptical of Computer-Based Patents 192
walterbyrd (182728) writes "The case, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, poses huge risks for both sides. If the court upholds the patent or rules only narrowly against it without affecting most others, the problem of too many patents — and patent lawsuits — will continue. In that case, Justice Stephen Breyer said, future competition could move from price and quality to 'who has the best patent lawyer.'"
COULD move from? (Score:5, Insightful)
COULD move from price and quality to 'who has the best patent lawyer'?
What COULD? How about we accept the reality it's already happened?
The best the SCOTUS could do is wipe software pats (Score:4, Insightful)
That would spur innovation and business far more than upholding them could.
I doubt the authors of the constitution ever foresaw the risk of patent trolling.
Re:COULD move from? (Score:5, Insightful)
COULD move from price and quality to 'who has the best patent lawyer'?
What COULD? How about we accept the reality it's already happened?
It's only happened to a small extent - if patent trolls are protected you can write off the USA as a source for innovation, period.
Re:The best the SCOTUS could do is wipe software p (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? How many times are you going to spend years of your life creating something awesome ... only to have someone else like Facebook or Zynga copy it, market it, and put you out of business?
I doubt you've looked past your own selfishness and actually seen the big picture, so its probably a good idea for you not to pretend to know what the authors of the constitution ... which has nothing at all to say about patents, had in mind when they wrote it.
Re:Best lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The best the SCOTUS could do is wipe software p (Score:5, Insightful)
I beg to differ. I create things all of the time and have realized that, even with a patent, I'm not rich enough to litigate it.
Re:you have things backwards (Score:0, Insightful)
So how exactly does making everything free spur innovation??
Re:The best the SCOTUS could do is wipe software p (Score:5, Insightful)
I should add, the only people who think patents should be abolished are people who don't create anything.
It only takes a single example to reveal how untrue that statement is. To say that no authors can disagree with you is incredibly arrogant.
It's also a mere ad hominem, so it's not even logical. Even if someone doesn't "create" anything, that doesn't make their arguments wrong.
Anyone who creates has a different opinion.
Well, how nice of you to decide what everyone else thinks. I'm a software developer and 100% against patents. Am I not a "creator"? Are you going to resort to a No True Scotsman now?
but ranting around about getting rid of them just makes you look ignorant.
I rant about getting rid of them because I value real private property rights (the ability to use your own resources to accomplish some goal, which at present may infringe upon some patent) over monopolies over procedures enforced by worthless government thugs.
I should add, no human being disagrees with me. If you disagree, you're not a True Human.
Re:The best the SCOTUS could do is wipe software p (Score:5, Insightful)
Which effectively meant, it a competitor saw our system at work, copied it and patented it we'd probably be willing to pay them a license fee just to get off our backs
Prior art, surely?
You still have to hire a legal defense to plead Prior Art. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's attorney has already done enough research to tell them how much to hit you for licensing, if they don't want to outright kill you (with an injunction) but are happy to just bleed you to death, while they take the proceeds and fund more IP research to see whomever else they can bully - thus limiting competition - so they don't have to perform better service or offer a superior product. Quite contrary to the spirit of the patent clause in the Constitution, I assure you.
It's not software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest problem here isn't the question of software patents. It's patents on things that are obvious, or are an obvious progression from something that's already common (eg. taking the manual process of balancing a checkbook and having a computer perform the exact same steps). It's just that software is the field where it's taken root the most, I think because people treat computers as some sort of magic that transforms the ordinary into something extraordinary.
The most straightforward way to deal with it might be to take computers out of the picture. Start by asking the question "If we replaced the computer with a trained monkey who could slavishly follow instructions, would this be patentable?". If the answer is "Yes.", then the patent's valid. If the answer's "No.", then the burden should be on the patent-holder to explain why the application of a computer to this problem is so non-intuitive, so non-obvious, that someone familiar with the problem and computers would not think of letting a computer handle the chore. And "Because nobody's done it before." is not a valid response. Someone always has to be the first one to try to solve a problem. Counter-intuitively, the patent-holder should have to show that they were not the first, that doing this was so non-obvious that there's a large number of other people who knew what they were doing who tried this and could not figure it out. That the first person to try it immediately found this solution should be considered support for the idea that this was an obvious solution and thus not eligible for patent. That is, after all, almost the dictionary definition of "obvious": the first thing you think to try when faced with a problem?
Re:Best lawyer (Score:4, Insightful)
I have read it, but when I compare it to how the real world works I see no correlation.
Re:COULD move from? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>> COULD move from price and quality to 'who has the best patent lawyer'?
>> What COULD? How about we accept the reality it's already happened?
> It's only happened to a small extent - if patent trolls are protected you can write off the USA as a source for innovation, period.
Sorry, I must disagree. It has not happened to a small extent. It's pervasive throughout all of the US legal system, when combined with bullying by rich corporations. Actually, some victims would rather pay for dubious patents than risk losing lots of money in a legal victory.
It's not just some magical powers that make China advance so fast; entrepreneurs are freer to try new things. Everybody says China only copies the West -- and surely it happens, sometimes very faithfully even -- but they're also experimenting with several innovations in design alone. They have still a lot of things to learn about customer satisfaction, but they succeeded in having a faster innovation cycle.
OTOH, the USA is becoming more and more trapped in legal bureaucracy. And it's not unintentional.
Re:you have things backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Also just stop and look at the insanity and stupidity of that logic ... a system that makes people be willfully ignorant of the current state of the art. A system that wastes resources by encouraging people to create something that will ultimately because it infringes. A system where investors won't (if they are smart) touch you if you haven't done due diligence at some point to protect their investment ... all the while knowing that no matter how hard you try chances are there is someone sitting out their just waiting for a target worthy of suing. How's that for stifling innovation??
I'm not saying patents would be 100% abolished, but the current system FAILS its intended purpose and is in need of a serious overall to avoid wasted resources, prevent submarine-ing, and generally stop ridiculously obvious patents in their tracks to the point of preventing them from being grants in the first place no less costing millions to fight.
I'll sum up with, if you are small entity and think the patent system is your friend ... you have not been paying attention.