EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

06.02.09

United States Supreme Court May Call Off Software Patents

Posted in America, Courtroom, Law, Patents at 6:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

U.S. Supreme Court hallway
US Supreme Court hallway

Summary: In Re Bilski takes a trip up law’s lane

WHEN the ruling in Re Bilski came out, many assumed it was the end of software patents, but there was no official word on the subject, just continued disputes and disagreements [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. The ruling is now being ascended to the Supreme Court, whose decision may be more explicit on this subject matter [pun intended].

In the ruling, the Court decided unanimously that the Sixth Circuit Court had improperly “derailed” an Ohio state court’s consideration of a claim by a death row inmate that he is mentally retarded, and thus cannot be executed. The Circuit Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in Bobby v. Bies (08-598), was wrong in issuing a habeas ruling that inmate Michael Bies’ retardation had already been established. Bies must pursue that claim in a pending state court case, the Justices concluded.

In an unsigned (”per curiam”) opinion, the Court by a 7-2 vote overturned a $5 million jury verdict in favor of a railroad employee who had work-related brain damage and lung diseases after prolonged exposure to a toxic chemical in the workplace. The Court found that the jury should have been instructed on what the worker must prove to show a genuine fear that he would someday develop cancer. The ruling came in CSX Transportation v. Hensley (08-1034). Justices Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens dissented.

Will there be less ambiguity regarding the impact on software patents this time around? The FFII-affiliated crowd has already responded to the news:

The article gives a brief summary on the case and some implications form a pro-SwPat perspective. Indeed, in the end there’s somewhat surprising summary of the effects of the ruling: “Thankfully, it does not seem as if Bilski has turned out to be the impediment to patentability that many feared, at least insofar as the Untited States Patent and Trademark Office is concerned. In fact, based on what is going on at the USPTO one could make a convincing argument that it is actually getting easier to obtain patents that relate to software and computer related processes.”

Comments can be found in Slashdot and in popular subscribers-only Linux sites where AstroTurfing is hardly existent. More coverage can be found in:

There will be a lot more overage of this in days to come. If software patents are annulled in the United States, then it probably will eliminate them globally, in due time.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

10 Comments

  1. saulgoode said,

    June 2, 2009 at 7:15 pm

    Gravatar

    It appears you pasted the wrong text from the scotusblog site. :)

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    I guess a better snippet could be quoted,

  2. Jose_X said,

    June 2, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    Gravatar

    This is huge, hopefully will be hugely positive.

    Some of the relevant text from the website:
    *****

    The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider writing a new, modern definition of the kinds of inventions that are eligible for patent rights. It accepted for review a test case on when, if ever, an invention that involves a method of doing business can be patented. The decision in the case of Bilski, et al., v. Doll (08-964) will come in the next Term, starting Oct. 5.

    The Bilski patent case that the Court agreed to hear will give the Justices the option of defining the scope of patent law to take account of the impact of the digital age on developing software that controls human activity, such as making business decisions about how to scope with economic risk. The U.S. Solicitor General had urged the Court to bypass the case, but the Justices did not take that advice. The case has generated hot, and even worldwide, controversy since two inventors in 1997 filed an application for a patent.

    ..The case is expected to draw a larger number of friend-of-court briefs on both sides of the patentability question.

  3. Yfrwlf said,

    June 2, 2009 at 11:03 pm

    Gravatar

    The title says software patents, yet this is about business method patents. Sure, it’s all stupid, and you can lump it all together and also say that one may end up effecting the other. If they are abolished, it’s proceeding in the right direction of course, but abolishing all software patents? I think you can safely put the corkscrew away for now.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    They are referring to two classes of patents that overlap.

    Jose_X Reply:

    Software patents and business method patents deviate from the normal interpretations and context of when/how patent law was written. Bilski made reference to this. Its discussion of machines and processes appears to recognize the physical requirements involved in the law.

    Post Bilski, some patent supporters have pointed to past court decisions (1952?) where different use of the same device was recognized as patentable. The idea being that a computer invention could be subject to an endless stream of patents depending on the software it is configured to run. Of course, by analogy, the pencil and paper should be subject to literature patents for every piece of literature that would violate a hypothetical literature patent that also specified its composition through either of those means.

    All software is immediately leverageable/cloneable by peers. Can you take a physical invention and clone it instantaneously, modify it, and reproduce it without limit as you put it on the Internet? No. You can’t do that to a building. You can’t do that to a pencil.

    Software, literature, etc, are very different. These fall under copyrights. They should not be patentable at all. Any exceptions considered would still have to be constitutional.

    I see software patents as unconstitutional. They do not promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts.

    As Red Hat mentioned in the EU response pdf found here http://press.redhat.com/2009/04/30/old-world-and-new-world-software-patent-problems/ , a lot of formal research also suggests patents are not equitable and don’t promote advancement.

    No matter how technical the issue in play or type of subject (legal, fiction, software, math…), putting monopolies on their research hampers, and potentially hampers very very much.. on a per incident basis. The only possible justification would be if such an idea would not be discoverable by others for a very long time and the lone genius would otherwise not share it for a very long time (the second is very likely false since there is much to be gained for getting credit to a discovery or for exploiting it quietly to get a head start on products). However, we know that any invention leverages much from its surrounding context. It uses many bits that were not patented by others and to which everyone else has access as well. We know that much value is being denied by shutting off an avenue to a single entity, especially since some of these avenues are extremely huge (very broad or basic patents). Again, not only is the lone genius idea almost laughable, but what research on a per patent basis is the USPTO doing to deduce that it would be a very long time before the rest of society could repeat the trick? Very little. They don’t have the time, resources, expertise, or crystal ball necessary so they don’t much try.

    People that think that really great software inventions should be patentable (never mind who would be the judge of “really great” or be judge over whether the invention description is too broad) should watch the 2 part youtube video of Stallman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE7BQXzDWzA . Pay attention to the analogy about Beethoven. In short, if people continue taking out patents and these were to be enforced more harshly, we would really hold back progress, as most of the patented material is needed in order to build the really great stuff. These inventions would also be rediscovered repeatedly as many times as necessary within the 20 years the patent protection runs.

    Oh, and there are many more inventors today than there were in the 1800s. Education, physical resources (only a PC), access and collaboration (eg, the Internet), lower costs overall, etc, have greatly increased the number of inventors and contributors in this 21st century, especially when concerning software inventions, over centuries past (especially compared to when patent law was mostly written). Monopolies over ideas get in the way of a great many inventors. Sure, patents are a great incentive to some, but the marginal gains from those that require patents to invent and do get them is nothing compared to all that is lost from everyone else that is barred from those patented areas.

    I mean, it makes no sense to give the first person to draft an application a patent. Every idea has to have a first (never mind that the actual first to invent possibly didn’t seek a patent). Why is the government getting in the way by knocking down the (good, modest, ordinary, or even brilliant) ideas future engineers can rediscover and leverage? It makes no sense to punish everyone in order to reward one person or a few for that matter. Brilliant discoveries happen all the time. Tomorrow’s brilliant discovery requires many prior brilliant steps (and we all know many patents even fall way short of the brilliant mark).

    Patents are also very unfair to those that make many inventions all the time but don’t have the time, money, savvy, or inclination/desire to seek patents. Their fruits help everyone, yet they get the short end of the stick the moment someone else patents a less worthy idea but which hampers their work and further progress. Time taken to write up patents is time not spent developing the ideas further, looking for new discoveries, nor implementing solutions and otherwise filling in the very important and time consuming details.

    Imagine if Knuth, who is against patents, had been patenting all along? How many over the years have used the many inventions he first laid out and even made many great inventions in their own right? Imagine if Beethoven had not been able to build a sizable music piece because of patents? How does society benefit? What about law, literature, comics, etc? What if people had been patenting the technical aspects in those fields?

    As a final other possible rebuttal, some will say that software creates technical functional specifications. “It’s engineering and not literature.” However, what makes “engineering” magical and automatically worthy of patents? “Process and machines” are terms used to describe technical creations in all sorts of fields, including for many forms of creative and noncreative writings. What today goes for a cooking recipe (presumed to be unpatentable), tomorrow becomes the actual program source code that gets that recipe to be generated by an oven. The recipe as English source code gets translated into the bits required to drive the machinery that creates the food. So it is the case that the source code is often hiding many of the actual details to interface with the hardware. It’s only the accumulated effects of lots of software+hardware translation layers that allow a high level description of something to lead to an actual product (when combined with the physical inventions). It’s relative to the adjoining technology. Of course, this is a side argument. Patent law cannot be unconstitutional, first and foremost, no matter what terminology is used and what characteristics are described in the patent application. After all, much is accomplished today as in the past through competition and not through monopolies that make it illegal for anyone else to even attempt to compete. It really is difficult to argue that giving a single entity the exclusive power to develop and idea will help society or the economy more than when everyone is allowed to participate and make their overlapping contributions.

    [And, to repeat, let's not forget that copyright protections (debateable itself as it is also a type of monopoly) already applies to software.]

    The reason patent law has stood the test of time is because they were applied to inventions that were out of scope for most people/inventors. It’s time-wise and money-wise expensive to reproduce gadgets. These also use up limited resources. Inventions traditionally patented were not something you or I were likely to want to nor be able to help create, refine, and distribute tomorrow. These physical inventions contrast with literature, math, and many areas where patents have been kept out. It’s so hard to argue that software does not belong with literature and math but instead belongs with watches, paper, pens, and book creation and other industrial processes. In almost all categories, the traits are shared with the former and not with the latter.

    A word on the patentability of other things: It has been argued that all patents hurt rather than hinder. I am not taking a position on that question but simply wanted to contrast software with traditional classes of inventions that have been patented. Software has fewer pros and a greater number of negatives with respect to patenting than do material inventions.

    Some “proof is in the pudding” to end: FOSS and many nonFOSS examples have shown that humans are more than willing to invent (especially within a quasi-capitalistic economy) without the (anti)incentive of extremely long-lasting patent monopolies. When we deal with ideas and products of the intellect, sharing is commonplace. It’s even more beneficial to share when we talk about functionality because we contribute a little but gain back a lot that is immediately useful to help us carry out our work. Money can be made in numerous ways, for example, at the last mile as we turn these gains to solve specific problems for others. Keeping patents away from software and ideas lowers a lot of friction in the creation process. [Heck, it allows creation!] As a partial analogy, the government itself recognizes that most taxes should be reserved to the last mile. That is how you promote rather than hinder social, economic, scientific, artistic, etc, despite the government’s needs for funds. We can make money on software but patents are not the way this should be done if we want to promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts.

  4. Dale B. Halling said,

    June 4, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    Gravatar

    The arguments against software patents have a fundamental flaw. As any electrical engineer knows, solutions to problems implemented in software can also be realized in hardware, i.e., electronic circuits. The main reason for choosing a software solution is the ease in implementing changes, the main reason for choosing a hardware solution is speed of processing. Therefore, a time critical solution is more likely to be implemented in hardware. While a solution that requires the ability to add features easily will be implemented in software. As a result, to be intellectually consistent those people against software patents also have to be against patents for electronic circuits. For more information on patents and innovation see http://www.hallingblog.com.

    Jose_X Reply:

    Software and hardware solutions are not the same thing. You accepted this. In particular, one is infinitely cloneable at negligible cost in time and money while the other most certainly is not. The implications are many (I touched on a few implications in the earlier comment).

    The US Constitution requires that any patents given must “promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” This may be the case for hardware inventions (perhaps not even for circuit design that use existing technology) but certainly is not the case for inventions implemented as software.

    See also the thread started by a comment with subject line “Is this really a strong argument?” “Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 04 2009 @ 07:16 AM EDT” here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090603224807259 . This thread is headed by this comment that argues a bit like your argument that there are many common points between software inventions and inventions in other areas. The focus there is wrt the dependence on mathematics, but the theme is that many or all patents share many things. The conclusion of that comment is along the lines of what I stated here that progress is hampered at least in the case of software if not also in other areas.

    Jose_X Reply:

    From that same thread, read this comment: “Authored by: PolR on Thursday, June 04 2009 @ 06:30 PM EDT”

    The argument is against calling a computer running the software as the “machine” called for by US patent law. [However, patent law also allows "processes," so this argument is not complete. It's still interesting.]

    >> This paragraph is failure to sort out the mathematics themselves from the meaning of the mathematical formulas. In the 1960s the engineers designing aircrafts were using sliding rules to perform their calculations. The mathematical formulas applicable to aircraft were not describing the sliding rules. They were describing the aircraft.

    >> Nowadays the same engineers are using computers instead of the sliding rules. The mathematical formulas are not describing the computer any more than they were describing the sliding rules. They still describe the aircraft though. An aircraft is patentable subject matter according to section 101 of US patent law because a machine is listed there and aircrafts are machines. The mathematics describing the aircraft is not listed as patentable subject matter in section 101. Whether or not a computer is involved in designing the aircraft is irrelevant. Mathematics is not patentable while the aircraft is.

    >> The mathematics that describe the computer are the boolean logic used to construct the gates in the circuitry. They are not the program running on the computer. The programs are mathematics describing whatever application domain outside the computer the program is used for, aircraft design in this example. This failure to identify the real meaning of the program is common among legal types that wish to argue that since aircrafts are mathematically described and patentable then so must be computers running software.

  5. saulgoode said,

    June 4, 2009 at 9:38 pm

    Gravatar

    The main reason for choosing a software solution is the ease in implementing changes, the main reason for choosing a hardware solution is speed of processing. Therefore, a time critical solution is more likely to be implemented in hardware. While a solution that requires the ability to add features easily will be implemented in software.

    Let me ask you a question, Mr Halling. If someone patents a mechanical invention — for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s a cableless suspension bridge — would it then be considered patent infringement for an unlicensed party to write a computer simulation of that bridge, mathematically modeling its behavior under various stresses and environmental conditions?

    If your answer is “yes, a computer model of a patented invention requires a license” then surely patent examiners should need to consider real world devices as potential prior art of any software which seeks to be patented. Your solution “to add features easily” could only be patented if the “time critical” hardware solution never existed. You could not patent software which modeled our hypothetical bridge because the bridge was already designed. You couldn’t patent any software solution to any problem which has already been solved with electronic circuits (those that have been published, anyway).

    If your answer is “no, computer simulation of a patented invention does not require a license” then how can software which does the same thing as some patented software ever be accused of infringement? If some software was written that simulated our cable-less suspension bridge and this software was patented, another programmer’s implementation of that same simulation is in reality merely “simulating” the patented software — which was decided would not be considered infringement.

What Else is New


  1. Links 19/2/2018: Linux 4.16 RC2, Nintendo Switch Now Full-fledged GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  2. PTAB Continues to Invalidate a Lot of Software Patents and to Stop Patent Examiners From Issuing Them

    Erasure of software patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) carries on unabated in spite of attempts to cause controversy and disdain towards PTAB



  3. The Patent 'Industry' Likes to Mention Berkheimer and Aatrix to Give the Mere Impression of Section 101/Alice Weakness

    Contrary to what patent maximalists keep saying about Berkheimer and Aatrix (two decisions of the Federal Circuit from earlier this month, both dealing with Alice-type challenges), neither actually changed anything in any substantial way



  4. Makan Delrahim is Wrong; Patents Are a Major Antitrust Problem, Sometimes Disguised Using Trolls Somewhere Like the Eastern District of Texas

    Debates and open disagreements over the stance of the lobbyist who is the current United States Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division



  5. Patent Trolls Watch: Microsoft-Connected Intellectual Ventures, Finjan, and Rumour of Technicolor-InterDigital Buyout

    Connections between various patent trolls and some patent troll statistics which have been circulated lately



  6. Software Patents Trickle in After § 101/Alice, But Courts Would Not Honour Them Anyway

    The dawn of § 101/Alice, which in principle eliminates almost every software patent, means that applicants find themselves having to utilise loopholes to fool examiners, but that's unlikely to impress judges (if they ever come to assessing these patents)



  7. In Aatrix v Green Shades the Court is Not Tolerating Software Patents But Merely Inquires/Wonders Whether the Patents at Hand Are Abstract

    Aatrix alleges patent infringement by Green Shades, but whether the patents at hand are abstract or not remains to be seen; this is not what patent maximalists claim it to be ("A Valentine for Software Patent Owners" or "valentine for patentee")



  8. An Indoctrinated Minority is Maintaining the Illusion That Patent Policy is to Blame for All or Most Problems of the United States

    The zealots who want to patent everything under the Sun and sue everyone under the Sun blame nations in the east (where the Sun rises) for all their misfortunes; this has reached somewhat ludicrous levels



  9. Berkheimer Decision is Still Being Spun by the Anti-Section 101/Alice Lobby

    12 days after Berkheimer v HP Inc. the patent maximalists continue to paint this decision as a game changer with regards to patent scope; the reality, however, is that this decision will soon be forgotten about and will have no substantial effect on either PTAB or Alice (because it's about neither of these)



  10. Academic Patent Immunity is Laughable and Academics Are Influenced by Corporate Money (for Steering Patent Agenda)

    Universities appear to have become battlegrounds in the war between practicing entities and a bunch of parasites who make a living out of litigation and patent bubbles



  11. UPC Optimism Languishes Even Among Paid UPC Propagandists Such as IAM

    Even voices which are attempting to give UPC momentum that it clearly lacks admit that things aren't looking well; the UK is not ratifying and Germany make take years to look into constitutional barriers



  12. Bejin Bieneman Props Up the Disgraced Randall Rader for Litigation Agenda

    Randall Rader keeps hanging out with the litigation 'industry' -- the very same 'industry' which he served in a closeted fashion when he was Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit (and vocal proponent of software patents, patent trolls and so on)



  13. With Stambler v Mastercard, Patent Maximalists Are Hoping to Prop Up Software Patents and Damage PTAB

    The patent 'industry' is hoping to persuade the highest US court to weaken the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for PTAB is making patent lawsuits a lot harder and raises the threshold for patent eligibility



  14. Apple Discovers That Its Patent Disputes Are a Losing Battle Which Only Lawyers Win (Profit From)

    By pouring a lot of money and energy into the 'litigation card' Apple lost focus and it's also losing some key cases, as its patents are simply not strong enough



  15. The Patent Microcosm Takes Berkheimer v HP Out of Context to Pretend PTAB Disregards Fact-Finding Process

    In view or in light of a recent decision (excerpt above), patent maximalists who are afraid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) try to paint it as inherently unjust and uncaring for facts



  16. Microsoft Has Left RPX, But RPX Now Pays a Microsoft Patent Troll, Intellectual Ventures

    The patent/litigation arms race keeps getting a little more complicated, as the 'arms' are being passed around to new and old entities that do nothing but shake-downs



  17. UPC Has Done Nothing for Europe Except Destruction of the EPO and Imminent Layoffs Due to Lack of Applications and Lowered Value of European Patents

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is merely a distant dream or a fantasy for litigators; to everyone else the UPC lobby has done nothing but damage, including potentially irreparable damage to the European Patent Office, which is declining very sharply



  18. Links 17/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.4, Wine 3.2, Go 1.10

    Links for the day



  19. Patent Trolls Are Thwarted by Judges, But Patent Lawyers View Them as a 'Business' Opportunity

    Patent lawyers are salivating over the idea that trolls may be coming to their state/s; owing to courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) other trolls' software patents get invalidated



  20. Microsoft's Patent Moves: Dominion Harbor, Intellectual Ventures, Intellectual Discovery, NEC and Uber

    A look at some of the latest moves and twists, as patents change hands and there are still signs of Microsoft's 'hidden hand'



  21. Links 15/2/2018: GNOME 3.28 Beta, Rust 1.24

    Links for the day



  22. Bavarian State Parliament Has Upcoming Debate About Issues Which Can Thwart UPC for Good

    An upcoming debate about Battistelli's attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal will open an old can of worms, which serves to show why UPC is a non-starter



  23. The EPO is Being Destroyed and There's Nothing Left to Replace It Except National Patent Offices

    It looks like Battistelli is setting up the European Patent Office (EPO) for mass layoffs; in fact, it looks as though he is so certain that the UPC will materialise that he obsesses over "validation" for mass litigation worldwide, departing from a "model office" that used to lead the world in terms of patent quality and workers' welfare/conditions



  24. IBM is Getting Desperate and Now Suing Microsoft Over Lost Staff, Not Just Suing Everyone Using Patents

    IBM's policy when it comes to patents, not to mention its alignment with patent extremists, gives room for thought if not deep concern; the company rapidly becomes more and more like a troll



  25. In Microsoft's Lawsuit Against Corel the Only Winner is the Lawyers

    The outcome of the old Microsoft v Corel lawsuit reaffirms a trend; companies with deep pockets harass their competitors, knowing that the legal bills are more cumbersome to the defendants; there's a similar example today in Cisco v Arista Networks



  26. The Latest Lies About Unitary Patent (UPC) and the EPO

    Lobbying defies facts; we are once again seeing some easily-debunked talking points from those who stand to benefit from the UPC and mass litigation



  27. Speech Deficit and No Freedom of Association at the EPO

    True information cannot be disseminated at the EPO and justice too is beyond elusive; this poses a threat to the EPO's future, not only to its already-damaged reputation



  28. No, Britain is Not Ratifying 'Unitary' Anything, But Team UPC Insinuates It Will (Desperate Effort to Affect Tomorrow's Outcome)

    Contrary to several misleading headlines from Bristows (in its blog and others'), the UPC isn't happening and isn't coming to the UK; it all amounts to lobbying (by setting false expectations)



  29. The EPO's Paid Promotion of Software Patents Gets Patent Maximalists All Excited and Emboldened

    The software patents advocacy from Battistelli (and his cohorts) isn't just a spit in the face of European Parliament but also the EPC; but patent scope seems to no longer exist or matter under his watch, as all he cares about is granting as many patents as possible, irrespective of real quality/legitimacy/merit



  30. Andrei Iancu Begins His USPTO Career While Former USPTO Director (and Now Paid Lobbyist) Keeps Meddling in Office Affairs

    The USPTO, which is supposed to be a government branch (loosely speaking) is being lobbied by former officials, who are now being paid by private corporations to help influence and shape policies; this damages the image of the Office and harms its independence from corporate influence


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts