Open Source Initiative, Free Software Foundation Unite Against Software Patents 105
WebMink writes "In rare joint move, the OSI and FSF have joined with Eben Moglen's Software Freedom Law Center to file a U.S. Supreme Court briefing in the CLS vs Alice case. The brief asserts the basic arguments that processes are not patentable if they are implemented solely through computer software, and that the best test for whether a software-implemented invention is solely implemented through software is whether special apparatus or the transformation of matter have been presented as part of the claims (the 'machine or transformation' test). They assert that finding software-only inventions unpatentable will not imperil the pace of software innovation, citing the overwhelming success of open source in the software industry as proof."
Re: (Score:3)
Well, good sense shows up for the battle anyway, we'll have to wait for a ruling to see if it prevails.
Good to see them working together (Score:4, Insightful)
I respect Stallman's accomplishments, and I can see the logic of his arguments, but I sometimes feel that he's too divisive within the F/LOSS community. Infighting - which is easy for outside forces to exploit - could weaken all sides of the movement. This lawsuit is a key example of a situation where by combining forces, they can achieve more than either those who take a pragmatic or a principled stand (what I see as the key differences between the OSI and FSF) could achieve alone. I hope to see more such efforts (and of course, I hope they prevail in this suit).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a logical impossibility.
By your comment, either there is infighting (by agreeing with the post I had replied to), or I'm causing infighting (by disagreeing).
Re:Good to see them working together (Score:5, Insightful)
I see nothing ad-hominem about pointing out that the leader of one of the organizations in question has frequently gone on the record attacking major projects supported by members of the other organization, and attacking those members' ethics in general. There was an article just a few days ago about Stallman denouncing LLVM/Clang, despite its technical merits and open-source nature, because it's not his preferred *flavor* of "free software". Never mind that just as anybody can fork it and make the fork proprietary, so can anybody fork it and make the fork copyleft. Also never mind that there are plenty of examples closing permissively-licensed software and having the open-source version (which may or may not have been relicensed copyleft) win anyhow.
Zealotry can have it's uses, but that doesn't mean that the zealots are right. It doesn't mean they're wrong, either. Some of Stallman's predictions have come eerily accurate. Others have been way off the mark. I'm of the opinion that cooperation and technical excellence in open-source development, regardless of whether or not it's copyleft, is more important than dividing the community over licensing issues. Stallman disagrees. This is an issue between the OSI and the FSF. That's not ad-hominem, it's a statement of fact pertinent to the discussion at hand.
But hey, if *you* want to have an argument about whether or not I'm making logically unsupported attacks.. well, you can go have one in the corner by yourself, while the rest of us discuss the actual topic. Try to keep it down, will you?
Re: (Score:2)
Was he attacking LLVM/Clang? That's not what I remember - I remember him saying it was a major threat to GCC's long-term viability, which of course it is, and discussing ways to mitigate that threat, including looking at ways to effectively cooperate with them. The again I read TFA, so what do I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Aha... LLVM/Clang vs. GCC.
I recall the days when compilers, editors, assemblers and cross development tools were all out of the reach
of all but a few. He is right that these basic tools need to be available.
I would note that the GCC folk have not been willing to embrace many enhancements or structural
changes. Their inflexible postures have IMO opened the door for the LLVM/Clang work.
In both cases there is enough openness that it will continue to be possible to bootstrap another
system.
More important in
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree. Perhaps by acknowledging the threat that LLVM poses on the practical field, the GCC community can be shaken from their comfortable complacency. For a long time GCC was arguably the best compiler available perhaps some coopertition with a relatively young but heavily-backed newcomer will lead them in a more productive direction. Or perhaps GCC will fade into irrelevancy and some day LLVM will fork in response to the almost-inevitable attempts to privatize it's further development. Only tim
to free or not to free (Score:2)
"over licensing issues"
free or not free, that's not a "licensing issue". it's all or nothing.
Re:to free or not to free (Score:4, Informative)
You're free to use either one the way you want.
You're free to modify either one the way you want.
One of them, you're free to relicense a fork of the code (even as proprietary) if you want.
The other one, you can know that any code you contribute to it will forever be free.
They are both "free". They are different flavors of free, but they are both free in every way that matters to users.
The *only* difference is in the way you can re-distribute them. That is a licensing (specifically, a matter of the copyright license) issue.
If you claim that BSD, or MIT, or even something like MS-PL are "not free"... well, you're crazy. Also, a prime example of the problems I was talking about at the start of the thread.
Re:to free or not to free (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. He points out that the only reason to use an Apache/MIT/public domain license is to allow it to be taken proprietary. In some cases, such as implementations of open standards, that can be a net benefit - in fact I'd be delighted if Libre-Office and others P.D.ed all ODF-related I/O libraries. And with Open Office having been donated to Apache we're getting that from at least one implementation. For other things, like the BSD kernel, it invites the appropriation by uncooperative commercial interests such as Apple. Whether that is a net benefit to human freedom is a far murkier question, and deserves to be highlighted by idealists.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that they are or aren't free (BSD), is that the freedom can be removed.
Re: (Score:2)
No it can't. It can be used in non-free ways, but your contributions, and the code base you were contributing to, will forever be free. You can't retroactively close source and make something proprietary. You (or somebody else) will always be able to take that code and do something free with it.
Re: (Score:1)
You're only proving cbhacking's point. Attitudes like yours are at least half the reason why "free" software fails. No one takes people seriously who can't be bothered to respect the basics of civil behaviour.
What do you mean? (Score:1)
Please do be specific about how Stallman is "too divisive" and somehow responsible for what you see as problems. Your claims are so vague it's hard to know if you are attacking the messenger instead of conveying that you understand what is being spoken about in the differences between the free software and open source movements. Quotes and references to published material would help you in what appears to be a vastly overrated post.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed. I've seen much rhetoric thrown about in this supposedly divisive battle, but precious little evidence of actual loss of contribution. Those involved with actually doing the work seem to mostly understand that *today* there is little difference between their philosophies, and they have much to gain by cooperation, even if it does flow more easily in one direction than the other. Individual projects choose a license to reflect their ideals and/or the community of volunteers upon which they hope to
Originating post was needlessly off-topic too. (Score:2)
The difference in philosophy can have radically different outcomes seen most clearly in the case of powerful, reliable proprietary software (adoption/recommendation for open source proponents versus rejection/replacement for free software activists is a starkly different outcome). Richard Stallman's essays on this topic point out this different reaction and the difference in philosophy that leads to the different reaction (older essay [gnu.org], newer essay [gnu.org]). But those essays highlight all the more that the post to w [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but if one company needs to invest in researchers and designers and architects, and the other doesn't, the other can spend more money hiring good software developers (and reverse engineers, admittedly, but I can RE in one afternoon an algorithm that took months of work to develop). So there's no guarantee that the first mover will have the better software. They will of course still have the first-mover advantage, but that doesn't guarantee success.
Personally, I favor a compromise. The computer industry
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without patent protection, a lot of software won't enter the market because copycats who haven't done any R&D to create an innovative product will have the same access/edge as people who created the product.
If this assumption were true, then wine should be able to run every piece of software published for MS Windows = Win7 flawlessly by now.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a non-sequitur. WINE requires binary compatibility - a far higher hurdle to clear than the functional equivalency protected by patents. Not that I'm in favor of software patents, but clouding the discussion serves no honest man.
Feel free to improve (Score:2)
This post may be freely copied, modified, and distributed as readers see fit.
That said, it kind of sucks, but it's free so feel free to improve it and give it some functionality should you see fit.
Note: If you're blind or require any kind of special apparatus to manipulate this post, you may be in violation of this license.
Re: (Score:2)
This naked post may be freely copied, modified, and distributed as petrified readers see fit.
That said, it kind of sucks hot grits, but it's free so feel free to improve it and give it some functionality (such as pouring) should you see fit.
Note: If you're in Soviet Russia, blind, or require any kind of special apparatus to manipulate this post, you may be in violation of this license.
Re: (Score:2)
I have it on very good authority that you used a keyboard, monitor, and/or tablet to modify that post. You'll be hearing from my attorney. Better call Saul.
Re:Feel free to improve (Score:4, Funny)
If a mouse was involved, I'm calling PETA too.
Re: (Score:2)
My mouse suffocated you insensitive clod!
why should "with a computer" matter at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that of you take an OLD idea and do it on a computer, doing it on a computer doesn't matter, it's still an old idea and not patentable.
That implies that if you create a NEW idea, doing it on a computer still doesn't matter.
If you decide that whether or not a computer is used affects patentability, it implies that adding "on a computer" could make something patentable just as easily as it could make something unpatentable. I believe that's a mistake. Old ideas shouldn't be patentable, while new inventions should be. Whether or not a computer is involved isn't really relevant.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe that of you take an OLD idea and do it on a computer, doing it on a computer doesn't matter, it's still an old idea and not patentable.
That implies that if you create a NEW idea, doing it on a computer still doesn't matter.
I agree. The sorts of things that are being patented "on a computer" shouldn't be patentable without a computer, either. The computer is ultimately just a mechanism for speeding up math. With or without that speedup, the underlying subject of the patent application is pure math—and math, as such, is not supposed to be patentable subject matter. It doesn't matter whether the idea is new or old.
Re: (Score:1)
that's kind of the point, isn't it? You can't patent ideas, but you can patent 'inventions', since those historically imply complete devices. The computer has blurred that concept, but depending on your view, software is really just a concept, and idea, or even simply a very long number. TBH, I find the whole concept of patents bad. I understand that you don't want some corporation with more direct development power to run off with your brilliant invention, but I have been in too many brainstorming sessions
Re:why should "with a computer" matter at all? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Throwing a computer into an otherwise patentable process won't make it unpatentable, see Diamond v. Diehr. The concern is whether something that has no substantial steps outside of a computer can be patentable. I would say that the answer is no, since software could theoretically 'run' on any Turing Complete machine (ignoring the infinite memory stuff), and the human mind can operate in that way. Operations of the human mind are mental processes, and have been explicitly ruled not patentable.
But remember, the question there isn't whether the software could be done in the mind, but whether the claimed invention could be done in the mind. For example, and ignoring the obvious issue about obviousness, let's say I have a claim of:
1. A method for diagnosing cancer, comprising:
receiving an identification of a PSA count for a patient;
comparing the received identification of a PSA count to a threshold; and
diagnosing the patient as having cancer, responsive to the PSA count exceeding the threshold.
Re: (Score:2)
As for 101, it is supposed to be a low bar, but there's supposed to be an impenetrable fortress around those exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Your example is almost identical to Parker v. Flook. The requirement for hardware is not an excuse because we need our brains to think.
I'm not sure how that addresses anything I said. The fact that we need our brains to think doesn't mean that you can rewrite a patent claim to remove all of those pesky bits that we don't actually do, in order to argue that the claim covers things it wouldn't otherwise cover.
As for 101, it is supposed to be a low bar, but there's supposed to be an impenetrable fortress around those exceptions.
But that impenetrable fortress shouldn't be expanded outward either.
Re: (Score:2)
>But that impenetrable fortress shouldn't be expanded outward either.
Not saying that it is, but why not? The whole point of patents, as explicitly stated in the Constitution, is "to promote science and the useful arts". If expanding the fortress is a net benefit to that end then it would seem trivially obvious that that is a desirable direction to move.
Re: (Score:2)
>But that impenetrable fortress shouldn't be expanded outward either.
Not saying that it is, but why not? The whole point of patents, as explicitly stated in the Constitution, is "to promote science and the useful arts". If expanding the fortress is a net benefit to that end then it would seem trivially obvious that that is a desirable direction to move.
Yes, and if turning lead into gold is possible, then it would seem trivially obvious that that is a desirable task to engage in. Your premise, however, is not yet proven.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither is yours. In fact there's a fair amount of evidence that the patent system inherently slows progress, versus only a common-sense theory that it has a benefit. And as we all know common sense is often wrong in the face of complex systems. If there's any doubt about the question, shouldn't we be erring on the side of the immediate social good?
Re: (Score:2)
Neither is yours.
On the contrary - there didn't used to be a patent system, and innovation was very slow; then patents were created, and innovation accelerated. Or, look at countries, including first world countries such as Switzerland, that didn't implement patent systems for decades while others, such as America, had them. Or, look at countries that didn't have patent systems a few decades ago, such as Vietnam and South Korea, and look at how they're doing now.
Now, of course, you'll say, "but they had wars! That's differ
Re: (Score:2)
My criticism of your choice would be comparing countries with much lower GDP as if they were valid points of comparison, and acting like a patent system ranks anywhere remotely near the top of the important changes made in that time. As for Switzerland, there were doing quite well in a number of industries before they had patents, and they adopted patents basi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but anything that can be done by a computer could be done by someone's mind. Even interacting with other hardware could theoretically be done, but the hardware you mentioned would easily fit the scope of a mere post-solution acti
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but anything that can be done by a computer could be done by someone's mind. Even interacting with other hardware could theoretically be done, but the hardware you mentioned would easily fit the scope of a mere post-solution activity.
... I feel like we're going around in circles. I keep saying "look at the claim, it recites hardware, therefore while a similar method can be done in the mind, the claimed invention cannot," and you keep saying, "ignore the claim language, remove every reference to hardware, rewrite it to strike out any element that undercuts my argument, and the result can be done in the mind."
I agree with you that if you completely rewrite the claim to be a pure algorithm, deleting everything that would make it patent eli
Re: (Score:2)
Given that, most of what is considered to be software patents has hardware involvement that would be accurately classed as a post-solution activity. Your examples of a electronic device, processor, and electronic device are no different than Flook's alarm. In fact, if we consider a human an electronic device, the brain a processor, and one's mind's
Re: (Score:2)
First things first: let's agree that all software is a subset of mental processes, and thus equivalent to other excluded categories for the purposes of 101.
With the stipulation that we're talking about software per se, yes.
Given that, most of what is considered to be software patents has hardware involvement that would be accurately classed as a post-solution activity. Your examples of a electronic device, processor, and electronic device are no different than Flook's alarm.
I believe you're misreading Flook, particularly in light of later developments. Look at Flook's claim - it would likely fail 101 under Bilski's test, which I think would apply better.
More importantly, while Flook's "adjusting an alarm limit" is actually post-solution activity, the hypothetical cancer-diagnosis claim we're discussing has the machine tied into every step of the process. Flook's claim was mental step, mental step, mental step,
Re: (Score:2)
No, the first step in both is the use of an existing machine used for a purpose it was was commonly used before previously. You have the various sensors in the catalytic converter that are the input to the digital computer and the unspecified means through which PSA count is made into the input of a digit
Re: (Score:2)
No, the first step in both is the use of an existing machine used for a purpose it was was commonly used before previously.
Not at all - we're talking about an existing machine used for an entirely new purpose. And as you know, a new, previously unknown use of an existing machine can be patentable, and certainly passes muster under 101.
You have the various sensors in the catalytic converter that are the input to the digital computer and the unspecified means through which PSA count is made into the input of a digital computer. The digital computer runs and algorithm in both, then it outputs the information in a way that communicates with a human, a displayed number and an alarm.
In our hypothetical, yes. Not in Flook's claim. For reference, Flook's claim 1 was:
"1. A method for updating the value of at least one alarm limit on at least one process variable involved in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons wherein said alarm limit has a current value of Bo + K, wherein Bo is the current alarm base and K is a predetermined alarm offset which comprises:
(1) Determining the present value of said process variable, said present value being defined as PVL;
(2) Determining a new alarm base B1, using the following equation: "B1=Bo(1.0-F) + PVL(F), where F is a predetermined number greater than zero and less than 1.0;
(3) Determining an updated alarm limit which is defined as B1 + K; and thereafter
(4) Adjusting said alarm limit to said updated alarm limit value.
No machine elements except for, arguably, the alarm limit. Except that you could easily say that if I tell you to be alarmed if I drink four shots of whiskey in less than an hour, that's an "alarm limit" that I just
Re: (Score:2)
Business method patents say otherwise ... of course business method patents are the worst form of patents (then design patents, then software patents third and then hardware patents).
Re: (Score:1)
There is little point in arguing the case on its logical merits. The primary function of patent law is to protect already-successful businesses from innovators. All your words ignore or reject that fact, and hence are ignored or rejected by the authorities.
The notion that patent law fosters innovation is a misrepresentation of it in order to win hearts and minds. In theory, it gives the already-successful businesses (those who have money to spend on RnD) an incentive to innovate. In practice, such busin
Re: (Score:2)
No. The primary purpose of patent law, as explicitly codified in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, is, and I quote, "to promote science and the useful arts". Any interpretation of patent law that is not subservient to that end has no legal legs to stand on.
Re: (Score:1)
Ideas aren't supposed to be patentable at all. Physical object are.
Patent office & Abstraction Physics.... (Score:3)
Clips from the Patent office regarding patents http://threeseas.net/mind/pate... [threeseas.net]
And of course http://abstractionphysics.net/ [abstractionphysics.net]
Two types of companies sue,and they're both trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
Or
You have a software giant with thousands of software patents who sues any little guy they perceive as a threat.
The notion of protecting the little guy with an idea from the ravages of cloning competition is a joke. There is a very real negative force applied to anyone who tries to make something new in the software world.
The overwhelming success of open source (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how far beyond that initial "free Unix" goal has Linux grown? There's an awful lot of *nix technology that originated on Linux and was only later ported to Unix, if it was ported at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I'm a bit curious as to your cla
Re: (Score:1)
I agree that GNU/Linux are high-quality pieces of software and that innovation takes place in large and small ways within every project, open source or not. My observation, which I think you will agree with, is that historically, most software categories (say, word processors, database servers, operating systems etc) start out as proprietary and often patented programs. Usually, several proprietary versions get produced before the FOSS versions start to come along. This is just an observation, and it doesn'
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding the claim that most fields start off as proprietary, I would disagree. First of all, the notion of a software business is a fair bit newer than the business of licensing software. In pre-WWW market, proprietary software did tend to be dominant (although it's worth remembering that the noti
Re: (Score:1)
software patents were practically non-existent before the 90s.
That is evidence that software innovation can happen without software patents. The success of open source (at least as far as it has been exemplified thus far) is not.
Regarding the claim that most fields start off as proprietary, I would disagree
Which fields have started off as open source? You mention CMS and web servers. Web servers started out open source, but since that work was government-funded it's a bit tangent to a debate about software patents. I don't know the history of CMS. Maybe that's a good example.
On the other hand, the argument that patents cause innovation is als
Re: (Score:2)
Again, where is the support for that notion? I see that Apache, which would probably be the goto example, was based off a CERN project, but said project seems to be on about the same scale as WorldWideWeb. FOSS and proprietary software both tend to build on those kinds of things fairly equally, so the only real argument that would bring here is that core research often happ
Re: (Score:1)
Granted, you may be right about the very start of these fields, but that's a pretty pointless question. If we go with the very start of a field, it would probably be almost entirely academic.
The reason why the very start of a field is important to this debate is that this is where innovation happens, and the main argument for software patents is that it allegedly fosters innovation. That's also why the very first origins of httpd matter when it's being used as an example. Those things that originate in academia are usually not patented, since academia has a culture of publishing without patenting.
The important thing here is not the number of users or developers of a product, but its degree of
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As for convincing, it's important to remember that this is not a debate facing software experts, but judges, and there's no compelling reason to exclude government funded research. Perhaps separating it would be appropriate, but there's no reason to ignore it, especially since useful government research is going to be FOSS.
Re: (Score:1)
We shouldnt want to get rid of patents (Score:1)
Forget Open Source... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think a better example of how unnecessary software patents are is to look at the period known sometimes referred to as "the PC Revolution". Virtually all the software written in the early days of personal computing (Apple II, IBM PC, TRS-80, etc...) was not patented, in fact it was believed by most programmers at the time that software just wasn't patentable. And yet that period saw unfettered innovation in software, I will cite the invention of the spreadsheet as just one example. Nobody in the industry worried about patents, everybody made money, and innovation soared. What better proof is there that software patents are not only not needed, but in practice actually suppress innovation?
Tell Zynga's targe- er, competitors about how copyright is enough to protect software and patents are unnecessary.
Re: (Score:3)
Tell Zynga's targe- er, competitors about how copyright is enough to protect software and patents are unnecessary.
You can't use a current example to prove patents are necessary, of course they are now, in this brave new world of IP protection mania. Once you introduce the idea and reality of software patents, they become essential for both defensive and offensive corporate strategy. But they're still an abomination, and contribute nothing of value to anyone who isn't a lawyer. Besides, I was talking about true innovation, Zynga and its ilk hardly qualify as shining examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell Zynga's targe- er, competitors about how copyright is enough to protect software and patents are unnecessary.
You can't use a current example to prove patents are necessary, of course they are now, in this brave new world of IP protection mania. Once you introduce the idea and reality of software patents, they become essential for both defensive and offensive corporate strategy.
Except, you'll note, that I was referring to instances where patents weren't used. For example, NimbleBit's Tiny Tower was covered by copyright, which didn't do anything to protect them when Zynga came along and released Dream Heights.
The only way your argument - that patents were necessary to NimbleBit, say, only because software patents existed - works is if prior to software patents, copyright protection was stronger and would have helped. But it wasn't and never has been, even in the pre-software paten
There's no such thing as software (Score:2)
"There isn't any software! Only different internal states of hardware. It's all hardware! It's a shame programmers don't grok that better."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
False, software uses mathematics and is more than math. Software is a real machine built from 1s and 0s; math is a set of abstract concepts. Software requires hardware to execute it. Math is abstract and can be applied in numerous scenarios, not just hardware.
Math-like languages are used in many fields. Does this mean none of the products they create are patentable? For eg, all modern digital circuits are designed using VHDL/Verilog. VHDL's sy
Instruction (Type A) and Instruction (Type B) (Score:2)
Person A independently devises a set of computer instructions that make it possible for any person with a cheap 3D printer to create a unique and specific product that, if created, would be patentable. The product is not created.
Person B independently does exactly the same thing--except that the instructions are written in English.
B is not patentable under patent law (and it shouldn't be). A shouldn't be patentable, either. Otherwise, we'll get people who'll write instructions for making old, patent-expi
both a misconception and irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a common misconception. The actual wording is that you can't patent the LAWS of nature, including the laws of mathematics. In other words, you can't patent gravity, you can patent a new type of elevator. You can't patent mass, you can patent a new type if scale. You can't patent "x + y = y + x". You can patent a new method for ranking relevant web pages in search results.
Also, "the first programmers were ..." is about as relevant as "the first humans were ...". Even what you said about that is wrong, too. The FIRST programmers re-arranged wooden gears to make the machine operate differently. Are you wanting to argue that a specific arrangement of gears designed to perform a specific task can never be a patentable invention?
Re: (Score:1)
A machine built using plastic and metals is patentable and a digital circuit using gates (machine) is patentable. However, accordin
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that software is a technology advanced to the point that it is built from pure mathematics - idea given form not in matter, but in rigorous logic. If software patents, like material patents, were restricted only to the specific implementation presented and could be bypassed by relatively trivial alternate implementations that would be less of a problem, and in fact would be largely covered by copyright. But they are instead routinely granted not for the implementation, but for the final
Re: (Score:1)
Any patent that can be easily bypassed is a poor patent. Design patents are meant to be easily bypassed, utility patents are not.
Re: (Score:2)
>Any patent that can be easily bypassed is a poor patent. Design patents are meant to be easily bypassed, utility patents are not.
And yet most mechanical patents can be bypassed with various amounts of ease. You cannot, for example, patent an alternator - you can only patent a particular design for an alternator and all the variations specifically listed. Ditto a steel roller - you can't patent "a mechanism for reshaping steel into large sheets of consistent thickness", only a particular method for doi
Re:both a misconception and irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful)
> You can patent a new method for ranking relevant web pages in search results.
Well, no. That's only the patent office's point of view. We don't know what the Supreme Court thinks about this, and that's what this case is going to decide.
Re: (Score:2)
> You can patent a new method for ranking relevant web pages in search results.
Well, no. That's only the patent office's point of view. We don't know what the Supreme Court thinks about this, and that's what this case is going to decide.
No, but we can see pretty well which way they're leaning, based on Bilski and other cases. We can also tell which way Congress is leaning, based on the fact that when they passed the AIA, post-Bilski, they didn't add an exemption for patenting software-implemented methods. And that fact will also further be a clue to the Supreme Court as to what Congress intended to be patentable.
Re: (Score:2)
> we can see pretty well which way they're leaning, based on Bilski and other cases.
If you check, you'll find that the last three subject matter cases taken by the Supreme Court have resulted in *narrowing* what is patentable.
The Mayo and Myriad cases narrowed subject matter very explicitly, and while I originally read Bilski was neutral, it did actually cause the CAFC to start rejecting certain types of previously-accepted patents, and Bilski is also the reason we're seeing this case today.
Re: (Score:2)
> we can see pretty well which way they're leaning, based on Bilski and other cases.
If you check, you'll find that the last three subject matter cases taken by the Supreme Court have resulted in *narrowing* what is patentable.
Narrowing what the Federal Circuit thinks is patentable, yes. Narrowing what the Supreme Court thinks is patentable, no.
The Mayo and Myriad cases narrowed subject matter very explicitly, and while I originally read Bilski was neutral, it did actually cause the CAFC to start rejecting certain types of previously-accepted patents, and Bilski is also the reason we're seeing this case today.
Bilski was not neutral at all, but rather broadened patentability by rejecting the strict Machine-or-Transformation test and saying that it was merely an important clue: something could neither be transformative nor tied to a specific machine, but still nonetheless pass muster under 35 USC 101. That's broader than what the Federal Circuit was applying pre-Bilski.
Re: (Score:2)
> Narrowing what the Federal Circuit thinks is patentable, yes. Narrowing what the Supreme Court thinks is patentable, no.
The Supreme Court rarely narrows what it thinks. They look for ways to judge each case in a way that (they can claim) is consistent with prior rulings.
The Supreme Court had never ruled on the subject matter of Mayo or Myriad before. Until they rule on something, the patents are "valid" if the PTO grants them and if the courts uphold them. In those two cases, the Supreme Court's rul
Re: (Score:2)
> Narrowing what the Federal Circuit thinks is patentable, yes. Narrowing what the Supreme Court thinks is patentable, no.
The Supreme Court rarely narrows what it thinks. They look for ways to judge each case in a way that (they can claim) is consistent with prior rulings.
The Supreme Court had never ruled on the subject matter of Mayo or Myriad before. Until they rule on something, the patents are "valid" if the PTO grants them and if the courts uphold them. In those two cases, the Supreme Court's ruling means the PTO has to stop granting a certain category of patents, and the lower courts have to stop upholding them against product developers. That means patentable subject matter got narrowed.
Yes, that's what I said. And in Bilski, patentable subject matter got broadened, when the Supreme Court said that the MoT test wasn't the sole test, and something could fail that standard but still be patent eligible.
patentable gear configurations (Score:3)
"Are you wanting to argue that a specific arrangement of gears designed to perform a specific task can never be a patentable invention?"
As open ended as you just put it I would not make that argument.
However, I'm imagining if people had big peg boards for placing gears on in their homes like people have computers now.
And what if they somehow performed different tasks by placing their gears on the pegs in different configurations.
Now what if someone told you you couldn't put your gears on your peg board in a
Re: (Score:2)
> You can patent a new method for ranking relevant web pages in search results.
Yes, but not according to patent law. Because it's an algorithm, and thus mathematics. All software is mathematics, mathematically provable.
The whole trouble comes from judges, lawyers and patent offices having a completely different definition of "algorithm" than science has. And you as well, obviously.
See also: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Softw... [swpat.org]
ranking web pages is not a phenomenon of nature (Score:2)
The applicable test is "the laws of nature, including the laws of mathematics". The phrase "you can't patent math" is fiction recently coined by anti-patent advocates, it is not law. Let me quote from your own link, since apparently you didn't read it before linking to it:
> Whoevever discovers a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature
How you choose to rank web pages is not a phenomenon of nature to be discovered. Rather, it "requires a degree of human creativity". Your position may be attractive, but i