Court Puts Further Limits on Software Patents 113
An anonymous reader writes "The Wall Street Journal is reporting on a recent court ruling that may severely limit the scope of both software and business model patents. The court found that 'The routine addition of modern electronics to an otherwise unpatentable invention' isn't enough to get over the 'non-obvious' hurdle that every patent is supposed to clear. This is a huge step in the right direction and one of the first admissions from the court system that perhaps software and business model patents have gone too far. 'In August, the Federal Circuit in essence raised the bar for proving willful infringement, a finding that allows a judge to triple a damage award. In April, the Supreme Court handed down a patent decision making it easier for trial-court judges to call an invention "obvious" and therefore ineligible for a patent.'"
One Click (Score:5, Insightful)
This move should also kill a whole bunch of the "... on the internet." patents off.
Common Sense Wins? (Score:3, Insightful)
Three cheers for the independent judiciary.
Modern? (Score:3, Insightful)
Professor X invents a Frammwizle. Patent Troll Y see that a Frammwizle can make many other past inventions more useful, and simply patents the use of the 2 together, just like is current dont with the Internet.
Since it's already happened, and this is meant to address that very situation, why should 'modern' be there at all?
Re:Modern? (Score:4, Interesting)
The internet is not a device.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Modern? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The act of hitting a nail isn't a device, and the internet isn't a device, as such.
combining patents (Score:2)
Taking two devices to make an improved, or different device is perfectly valid.
It may be valid but it's not valid to issue a patent for it.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
obvious (Score:4, Funny)
Did this patent decision also make it easier for them to call an invention +5 insightful?
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, I think you need a vacation from slashdot
Can someone please explain why (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What's the difference between the USPTO selling void patents and a conman selling famous landmarks? Is it a case on caveat emptor or would the con artist be prosecuted?
Re: (Score:1)
What's the difference between the USPTO selling void patents and a conman selling famous landmarks? Is it a case on caveat emptor or would the con artist be prosecuted?
I hadn't heard that the USPTO was 'selling' patents, personally. Perhaps charging filing fees (which you pay whether you are granted a patent or not), yes, but AFAIK, they don't take money to award a patent. Are you implying that the USPTO was taking payoffs?
As far as the conman goes, it's mostly a civil matter. You can't sell what you don't own.
Re: (Score:2)
I hadn't heard that the USPTO was 'selling' patents, personally. Perhaps charging filing fees (which you pay whether you are granted a patent or not), yes, but AFAIK, they don't take money to award a patent.
Ah but the USPTO is selling patents. The more patent they issue the more people will apply for patents, and pay when making a claim. If the USPTO were to start turning down patent applications the number of applications would decline. For them it's a matter of volume.
Abolish all patents!
Falcon
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
You will be hearing from my attorneys you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, "they" go with IMAP IDLE.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's not sessionless. When the server gets the announcement packet, it has a session with the client, and the client assumes it has a session with the server. What you described is TCP, except without ACKs. The server is pushing data to the client; the fact that the client initiated the connection is immaterial. Using elm over telnet in 1986 would be prior art.
Other than the fact it partly tongue-in-cheek, who the heck said it was a session. What if, just if, it was done over UDP, or perhaps some other protocol entirely (there's quite a few in the wireless realm, like, say, GPRS)
If IIRC, elm required user input before updating the screen. It's been about 17 years since I've seen elm though. However, your point proves my point precisely, that the entire NTP patent is patently obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we agree on the main point, so carry on.
Re: (Score:1)
It's why UDP can load a network to 99% of theoretical throughput while TCP gets a maximum of roughly 60% under optimum conditions.
Re:Can someone please explain why (Score:5, Interesting)
How is their patented "push technology" different from, say, someone with a linux based phone running a stock mail transfer agent (such as sendmail or its successors) on the phone, with his ISP's MTA programmed to forward his mail to his own MTA in the normal fashion, and BIFF (or one of its successors) set up to beep at him when new mail arrives? This is a straightforward configuration of standard components. If you want to be able to read your email when out of range of the cell network it's the obvious way to configure it. No "invention" required.
I have a site, for instance, that receives mail by periodic polling of the ISP using UUCP-over-IP with dialup UUCP backup. If I were to move it to a linux phone - or clone the configuration - and switch the initiation of scheduled UUCP polling from my side to the ISP's side, I'd have one form of what I described in the paragraph above. It would be a typical mail configuration from the earliest days of UUCP-internet mail bridging. The sole change would be that the user's terminal happens to be a cellphone and the dialup polling happens to be by "radio phone" rather than landline.
Similarly if the cloned configuration accepted mail forwarded via SMTP, with the ISP's mail servers as some of the MX record entries (or the only ones), so inbound mail has somewhere to go when the phone itself isn't present on the net.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case would a mail transfer agent on the home machine, programmed in the normal way to forward mail to the laptop's or cellphone's MTA, also be infringing "push technology"?
Now substitute "the ISP's routing daemon" for "my home machine's routing daemon". Isn'
Ron Paul (Score:2)
(re)Register Republican NOW. Vote Ron Paul in the primary. It'll drive the politicians NUTS!
I'll change my registration just before the primary to Republican so I can vote for Ron Paul. Then afterwards I'll change it right back to "No Party Preference". This is stupid, with an open primary I could vote for the best candidate for each party. Of course that would reduce the power of the parties though.
FalconSo what is his position on patent law? (Score:1)
with an open primary I could vote for the best candidate for each party.
In an open primary, Republicans could vote for the worst [votefortheworst.com] Democrat, and Democrats could vote for the worst Republican.
ObTopic: But is there a candidate for President of the United States from each of the top two U.S. political parties who advocates correcting the balance of property rights in inventions and works of authorship? Has Ron Paul stated his views on these? Google ron paul copyright law and ron paul patent law didn't seem to help.
copyrights and patents (Score:2)
In an open primary, Republicans could vote for the worst [votefortheworst.com] Democrat, and Democrats could vote for the worst Republican.
While this is a potential negative of open primaries I think those who would do something like this are shortsighted for putting their political party above having the best candidate win the election. Instead of being able to think for themselves they let the party think for them.
Has Ron Paul stated his views on these?
I didn't find anything either however I imag
Re: (Score:2)
Since your affiliation affects only which primary you can vote in, it doesn't hurt to have it set any way that's convenient.
I understand that for some states the cutoff for party change is coming up in a week or so. Even if it isn't, changing now means you won't risk forgetting it until it's too late. It also means you'll have a chance to correct
political party affiliation (Score:2)
I understand that for some states the cutoff for party change is coming up in a week or so. Even if it isn't, changing now means you won't risk forgetting it until it's too late. It also means you'll have a chance to correct any errors before the deadline.
I hadn't thought about a cutoff for registration. However some states allow you to register on election day, or used to at least. Also I'm already registered I just need to change some info on it. I'll have to check on that where I live, however I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Everyone always says, "that's obvious..." and "of course, push email, blah, blah, blah..." What most people don't realize is that it's not merely the idea that gets patented - it's the technology that enables the idea. In 1984 when the idea for push email first gelled, there was only pull. It was not obvious, at the time, that a push email system could work. In fact, it took nearly 8 years and lots and lots of money to build a push email solut
Re: (Score:2)
If you were to take somebody from 1984 and tell them about the ubiquity of cellular networks and the internet, and ask them to design an email system, push would be obvious to them. It genuinely is an obvious idea. That it hadn't been invented before wheneve
Re: (Score:1)
Using nano-technology to eradicate cancer is an obvious idea.
I assure you the first person/company that successfully pulls it off will have patents to protect their IP, even though it was "obvious".
It's not the WHAT that gets patented, it's the HOW.
In spite of what you might believe, this is true for the NTP patents, as well.
As for your little time-travel gedankin experiment... as they say, hindsight is 20-20. I don't find your reasoning particularly compelling.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, here's the first claim of 6,317,592, which Wikipedia says is involved in the NTP dispute:
Re: (Score:1)
Also, one final point. You seem to be confu
Re: (Score:2)
The constitutionally mandated purpose is "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts." Historically the idea was that patents were a way of encouraging inventors to disclose their inventions, in return for a temporary monopoly. (If the purpose were only to protect, w
A step in the right direction. (Score:2)
Stupid Patents (Score:3, Funny)
IsNot (patent pending)!!!!!
Stupid Moderator (Score:2)
Link [slashdot.org]
That may explain IBM's new position (Score:2)
From Sutor's blog IBM adopted a new policy a year ago to sharply reduce business method patent filings and instead stress significant technical content in its patents.
Does this make IBM's new policy seem a bit less altruistic?
Re: (Score:1)
This doesn't touch software, just obviousness (Score:5, Informative)
Although many software patents might be obvious, and pass the Supreme Court test, there are no really good precedents - yet - that cover software patent obviousness, saving the ongoing one-click litigation.
Not as nice or as pertinent as some would like, but I'll take it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'I don't know why the PTO has ben so lax lately on non-obviousness....'
This is why we need precedent to bridle the weasels that believe their brilliant software idea must be exempt as no one could ever think of it (wink wink). The law's vague and the congress is lame and incapable of thought and action, so for now, it's the US Supreme Court that must guide this by example, because no one else west of them in Washington has given any leadership/guidance. And though the court
The summary reminded me of my days at Nokia (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sure other companies do exactly the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The summary reminded me of my days at Nokia (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm suggesting you don't have to have a commercial app ready, but you have to have a working model (if it's a physical device) or software that runs (if it's software) that the patent examiner can try out.
software patents (Score:2)
you have to have a working model (if it's a physical device) or software that runs (if it's software) that the patent examiner can try out.
Software should never ever be patneted!!`
FALCONRe: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The original idea of the patent system was that some individual inventor could come up with the invention in their bedroom, get a patent, then go round venture capitalists looking for funding to implement it without having to worry about them stealing his idea and implementing it themselves.
No, patents were originally granted to encourage public disclosure. With a patent an inventor has to publicly disclose the invention, but then they get a limited monopoly to the right to market it. If an inventor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To prove that point, you'd have to show that:
where A * B * C * D = 99%. I'd estimate that it's actually far below the noise floor, and other factors, such as the insane cost of patent litigation (allowing the use of bogus patents a weapon against small companies
So Keith Henson loses his "satellite launch whip"? (Score:3, Insightful)
So you'd deny Keith Henson his satellite launching whip patent [google.com] - just because he can't afford to buy a 747, modify it to attach the tow cable, and do aerobatics with it until he gets a payload out of the atmosphere?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So Keith Henson loses his "satellite launch whi (Score:1)
Yes! That's a perfect example! That patent should have been denied!
Only people that invent stuff should get patents. An invention isn't just sitting around thinking up crap. Anyone can do that. To qualify as the inventor, you have to show that the idea is actually physically realiza
Re: (Score:2)
Once someone comes up with the idea, there's a lot of development to do before it becomes a working prototype and then a marketable product. (Edison: "... one percent inspiration, 99 percent perspiration.") That 99% stage requires a lot of money.
If somebody isn't already independently wealthy, he'll need to find backers. One of the primary purposes of the patent system is to protect the inventor during this stage. A prospective backer would get a LO
Re: (Score:2)
Neither my spellchecker or online dictionary recognize this word, but I still like it very much. Is it real?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What this says (Score:5, Interesting)
What this really is saying is...
If an idea isn't patentable on it's own, then simply doing it with a computer isn't enough to make it patentable.
So if an idea such as "Tell something to somebody using piglatin" isn't patentable, then "Tell something to somebody using piglatin on a computer" or "Tell something to somebody using piglatin on a PDA" is not patentable either.
It could really limit the "dumb" patents.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how this would affect Vonage's patent woes.
Re: (Score:2)
A store somehow registering you so you can walk in, pick up an item and put it in your pocket to purchase, and walk out.
Is that patentable? Dunno.
Not quite: (Score:2)
Not quite right.
How about: "A store recording your billing and shipping information, so you can walk in, point to an item, and tell the salesman to 'deliver it to my place and put it on my account'"
Re: (Score:2)
The test-case in the article was completely uninteresting to most of us. It was a further comment in the ruling that is "the routine addition of modern electronics to an otherwise unpatentable invention"
So if someone attempted to patent the process of going to the store, adding items to your shopping cart, taking it to the counter, and paying the requested amount and the patent was rejected for this simple process then based on that ruling and the "routine addition of modern electronics" ruling "One Click Shopping" patent would have to be declared invalid on challenge in court?
Honestly, the one-click patent debate has me a bit confused. Admittedly, I am not terribly well-read on the subject, but I really don't see what is so complicated about it. Seems to me that a system for implementing one-click ordering should be patentable--much in the way a design for a cash register might be--but that the purchase process itself (as viewed from the user perspective) should not be patentable--that would be like patenting face-to-face cash transactions.
I do understand that the patent [uspto.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me that a system for implementing one-click ordering should be patentable--much in the way a design for a cash register might be
I don't think so. It's just too broad. The way I "bought" office supplies in Japan was exactly the same. You entered the supply store, showed your badge to get a basket and an optical scanner, then as you put stuff into the basket, you scanned it with the scanner and then on the way out, a clerk would check the list on his screen against what you had in the basket, turn in scanner, take out your supplies.
Conceptually, that process isn't any different than one-click ordering and neither should be patenta
Re: (Score:2)
But that's exactly what I said--the process as viewed from a consumer's perspective shouldn't be patentable. However, I believe that a specific, non-obvious technological solution for implementing said process should be patentable.
In principle, different retailers could have their own implementations of the process that appear the same to the customer. Obviously, there are practical issues here: changing one small detail of an implementation should not be a way to get around a patent. However, if there
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the things you are missing is that the one-click patent covers something that is incredibly trivial and used throughout applications for a long time, it's just the one-click was used for other things typically. We all love car analogies so here goes: The one-click patent is similar to patenting a braking system used to avoid trees on the roadway (that's one click for purchasing). Using the braking system for any other purpose is ok (that's every other possible use of a button or click that's been used in other applications). Do you think it would be ok if someone patented any of these: 1 click for "Ok" 1 click to "Cancel" a transaction 1 click for "Submit" 1 click for "Post" 1 click for "Preview" etc.
Yes, "click here" or "step on the brake pedal" are obvious and have no merits as patents. But the technological underpinnings of a vehicle's braking system should be patentable and, by analogy, it's not clear to me that a nontrivial technological implementations of a one-click ordering system should not be.
A key distinction I am making is between what the user sees/does and the technology by which that is realized. If I can describe a novel implementation of a one-click purchasing system based on duct
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me that a system for implementing one-click ordering should be patentable
One click ordering should NOT be patentable. Though I don't know much about programming or databases it seems to me that they are an obvious use of cookies. Either the data can be kept in the cookie or the cookie holds a unique value, primary key, which points to a table in a database, then when the buy button is pressed the id number of the item is added to the table in the db for the purchaser. Once all items are chose
Re: (Score:2)
One click ordering should NOT be patentable.
I guess I should have been more clear in stating my belief: I believe a novel, non-obvious implementation of one-click purchasing should be patentable in principle. I realize that Amazon's actual patent may stand on somewhat weak ground from both non-obviousness and novelty perspectives. But whether Amazon's specific patent should be overturned really is a separate issue from whether some technological implementation of one-click might be patentable.
Some people seem to believe that nothing associated
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Business methods patents are patents on complexes of actions, not "mental processes", aren't they? And, if not, wouldn't this also imply that patents on algorithms (e.g., in cryptography) are not patentable?
Re: (Score:2)
However, Tell something to somebody using piglatin wirelessly is innovative and is patented by NTP.
Re:What this says (rehashed Diamond v. Diehr 1981) (Score:1)
barfed up from Parker v. Flook (1978), wherein it is largely accepted
black-letter law that:
'insignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process'
Totally ancient. Even Slashdot's own 'djb' (Daniel J. Bernstein) recognized
the veracity of the "mental steps" doctrine as applied to software.
Irrelevant (Score:2)
As I mentioned elsewhere, I do not know why the PTO has been so lax on these rules in recent years, but the rules have been in place for a very long time.
Past Suits... (Score:1)
If a bunch of patents are, for whatever reason, invalidated and the process is determined to be broken then what becomes of the payments that companies have already forfeited in court?
There are some who postulate that the radar gun will never be truly beaten in court because it will then invalidate all the speeding tickets of the past that relied on a radar gun. I am not a lawyer so I have no opinion on either really but it is someth
Re: (Score:1)
D20 (Score:2)
'start a Patent Militia' Them be fighting words, I'll bring my d20.
Instead of the D20 I'd rather have Canon's new EOS 1Ds Mark III [canon.com] with it's new 21.1-megapixel full-frame Canon CMOS sensor. Now we are seeing DSLRs closing in on low end medium format digital backs as well as 35mm film. I got my issue of "Digital Photo Pro" [digitalphotopro.com] today and it has a review of it and of Nikon's new fullframe D3.
Falcon
what Thomas Jefferso thought of patents (Score:2)
It makes me wonder what Thomas Jefferson would think about today's citizens.
Thomas Jefferson was originally opposed to patents, however eventually his friend James Madison convinced him that patents could prove more beneficial than not having patents. He even took out some patents himself. One was a machine that processed hemp aka marijuana, which up until the cotton gin was invented was the most widely used material for making cloth.
FalconMisleading headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I the only one that finds it deeply ironic that this ruling came because an "inventor" (patent jargon for 'lawyer') tried to patent something that would affect other lawyers? The CAFC does not care a jot about engineers, programmers, designers. But it does really care about inventors, sorry, lawyers.
Re: (Score:1)
They get around it by calling it "the device", but it essence, "the device" is a computer running "someone's software".
This is nothing new at all (Score:4, Informative)
In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent- mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.).
Re: (Score:2)
Lets get some even scoring (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Hold it... (Score:3, Funny)
Hold it hold it hold it...
The latest ruling came in a case arising from a patent application by Stephen Comiskey, a lawyer who wanted to create a system for "mandatory arbitration involving legal documents," such as wills or contracts. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied Mr. Comiskey's patent application, as did the agency's board of appeals. Mr. Comiskey took his appeal to court.
Did this guy try to patent lawsuits?
Wow. That takes huge brass ones.
Frankly, I wonder if Mr. Comiskey shouldn't be more worried about his patent being invalidated by the huge body of prior art on Slashdot, every time a patent subject comes up and some bright bulb attempts to create a joke metapatent or something.
Patent Law/reform (Score:1)
Progress (Score:2)
So it pays to keep whining, if the whines are legitimate, about injustices like these. It just takes way to