Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Graphics The Courts

Appeals Court Affirms Old Polaroid Patent Invalid 45

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the bite-the-dust dept.
mpicpp (3454017) writes with news of a notoriously abused (basically "method of displaying images on a machine") software patent being declared invalid. From the article: The ruling from last week is one of the first to apply new Supreme Court guidance about when ideas are too "abstract" to be patented. ... The patents in this case describe a type of "device profile" that allows digital images to be accurately displayed on different devices. US Patent No. 6,128,415 was originally filed by Polaroid in 1996. After a series of transfers, in 2012 the patent was sold to Digitech Image Technologies, a branch of Acacia Research Corporation, the largest publicly traded patent assertion company. ... In the opinion, a three-judge panel found that the device profile described in the patent is a "collection of intangible color and spatial information," not a machine or manufactured object. "Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101," wrote Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna on behalf of the panel.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Appeals Court Affirms Old Polaroid Patent Invalid

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    "Kodachrome"

    When I think back
    On all the crap I learned in high school
    It's a wonder
    I can think at all
    And though my lack of education
    Hasn't hurt me none
    I can read the writing on the wall

    Kodachrome
    They give us those nice bright colors
    They give us the greens of summers
    Makes you think all the world's
    a sunny day
    I got a Nikon camera
    I love to take a photograph
    So mama don't take my Kodachrome away

    If you took all the girls I knew
    When I was single
    And brought them all together
    for one night
    I know they'd never match
    my sw

  • Hardly a shocker (Score:5, Informative)

    by SlaveToTheGrind (546262) on Friday July 18, 2014 @07:51PM (#47486979)

    The district court held the patent invalid under the old standard that was, in practice, more generous toward software algorithm patents. Then the Supreme Court decided CLS Bank, making software algorithm patents more difficult to obtain/keep. Under those circumstances, it would have been newsworthy if the Federal Circuit hadn't affirmed in this case.

    • by steelfood (895457)

      Given how pro-patent the Federal Circuit has been in the past, this is noteworthy. Remember that it was the Federal Circuit who opened the gateway for software and business method patents.

      I have a suspicion the supremes are a bit peeved at them right now for all the shitty decisions they've been making since the 90's, and they really are concerned that their authority will be undermined by the SCOTUS' recent decisions and the lower courts applying them.

      The way I see it, this is basically them saying, "Hey e

  • too long, read against my better judgement Wading through the patent, it just seems to describe the process of converting a vector image to a raster image. I don't see anything novel.
    • by tyme (6621)

      What patent were you reading? There is not a single mention of conversion of vector images to raster images!

      The patent describes a set of recorded data that corrects for color and "spatial" distortion of an image by an input our output device. All the claims pertain to various features of that data set, or of the process of applying the corrections to an image.

  • amazing... (Score:4, Funny)

    by guygo (894298) on Friday July 18, 2014 @08:49PM (#47487137)
    a common-sense decision from a Patent Court.
  • by CanEHdian (1098955) on Friday July 18, 2014 @09:41PM (#47487303)
    Well, well... is Slashdot joining the PoliCor movement? A "patent assertion company"? Those companies must be the Pride and Joy of the American Enterprising spirit!
  • by ZipK (1051658) on Friday July 18, 2014 @10:42PM (#47487453)
    Nice euphemism you got there.
  • Does this mean that the 2012 patent to PKware for high-strength encryption applied to individual members of an archive, #8090942 [google.com], is ripe for challenge?
  • If a "Patent Assertion Company" or "Non-Practicing Entity" is found to have collected royalties on an invalid patent, they should be required to return the royalties.
    • If a "Patent Assertion Company" or "Non-Practicing Entity" is found to have collected royalties on an invalid patent, they should be required to return the royalties.

      I disagree, if the royalties were collected under a contract that was not forced upon the payors via court action or threat thereof.

  • "Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101,"

    Intellectual property is ownership of ethereal, non-physical ideas so couldn't this be used to combat IP across the board?

If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. -- Norm Schryer

Working...