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. Amid Constitutional Court Barrier, Unitary Patent (UPC) Looks Dead Even to UPC Proponents, the EPO's UPC 'Study' Comes Under Fire

    This Thanksgiving Day is spent by Team UPC trying to prop up the UPC even though no progress whatsoever is being made and the EPO's 'study' on the UPC is said to be flawed



  2. The European Patent Office Has Become the 'Foxconn' of Patent Offices

    The demise of the EPO, which emulates patent offices that are racing to the bottom, is a life-threatening employer which now jeopardises its very existence



  3. Links 23/11/2017: Lumina and Qt Quick

    Links for the day



  4. EPO is Imploding as Benoît Battistelli Drains Out Work, Talent, and Justice

    Battistelli's vicious assault on the Office, culminating in an attack on justice and the drainage of work (declining/decreasing 'demand' for 'products') necessarily means mass layoffs and nothing to fill the vacuum left



  5. Links 22/11/2017: Qt 5.9.3 Released, FCC v the Internet

    Links for the day



  6. Patent Lawyers' Media Comes to Grips With the End of Software Patents

    The reality of the matter is grim for software patents and the patent microcosm, 'borrowing' the media as usual, tries to give false hopes by insinuating that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) may overturn Alice quite soon



  7. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Foes Manipulate the Facts to Belittle the Impact of PTAB

    In an effort to sabotage PTAB with its inter partes reviews the patent microcosm is organising one-sided events that slam PTAB's legitimacy and misrepresent statistics



  8. Links 21/11/2017: LibreELEC (Krypton) v8.2.1 MR, Mesa 17.3.0 RC5

    Links for the day



  9. PTAB Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”) Are Essential in an Age When One Can Get Sued for Merely Mocking a Patent

    The battle over the right to criticise particular patents has gotten very real and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) fought it until the end; this is why we need granted patents to be criticised upon petitions too (and often invalidated as a result)



  10. Chinese Patent Policy Continues to Mimic All the Worst Elements of the American System

    China is becoming what the United States used to be in terms of patents, whereas the American system is adopting saner patent policies that foster real innovation whilst curtailing mass litigation



  11. Links 20/11/2017: Why GNU/Linux is Better Than Windows, Another Linus Torvalds Rant

    Links for the day



  12. “US Inventor” is a “Bucket of Deplorables” Not Worthy of Media Coverage

    Jan Wolfe of Reuters treats a fringe group called “US Inventor” as though it's a conservative voice rather than a bunch of patent extremists pretending to be inventors



  13. Team Battistelli's Attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal Predate the Illegal Sanctions Against a Judge

    A walk back along memory lane reveals that Battistelli has, all along, suppressed and marginalised DG3 members, in order to cement total control over the entire Organisation, not just the Office



  14. PTAB is Safe, the Patent Extremists Just Try to Scandalise It Out of Sheer Desperation

    The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which gave powers to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through inter partes reviews (IPRs), has no imminent threats, not potent ones anyway



  15. Update on the EPO's Crackdown on the Boards of Appeal

    Demand of 35% increases from the boards serves to show that Battistelli now does to the 'independent' judges what he already did to examiners at the Office



  16. The Lobbyists Are Trying to Subvert US Law in Favour of Patent Predators

    Mingorance, Kappos, Underweiser and other lobbyists for the software patents agenda (paid by firms like Microsoft and IBM) keep trying to undo progress, notably the bans on software patents



  17. Patent Trolls Based in East Texas Are Affected Very Critically by TC Heartland

    The latest situation in Texas (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in particular), which according to new analyses is the target of legal scrutiny for the 'loopholes' it provided to patent trolls in search of easy legal battles



  18. Alice Remains a Strong Precedential Decision and the Media Has Turned Against Software Patents

    The momentum against the scourge of software patents and the desperation among patent 'professionals' (people who don't create/develop/invent) is growing



  19. Harm Still Caused by Granted Software Patents

    A roundup of recent (past week's) announcements, including legal actions, contingent upon software patents in an age when software patents bear no real legitimacy



  20. Links 18/11/2017: Raspberry Digital Signage 10, New Nano

    Links for the day



  21. 23,000 Posts

    23,000 blog posts milestone reached in 11 years



  22. BlackBerry Cannot Sell Phones and Apple Looks Like the Next BlackBerry (a Pile of Patents)

    The lifecycle of mobile giants seems to typically end in patent shakedown, as Apple loses its business to Android just like Nokia and BlackBerry lost it to Apple



  23. EFF and CCIA Use Docket Navigator and Lex Machina to Identify 'Stupid Patents' (Usually Software Patents That Are Not Valid)

    In spite of threats and lawsuits from bogus 'inventors' whom they criticise, EFF staff continues the battle against patents that should never have been granted at all



  24. The Australian Productivity Commission Shows the Correct Approach to Setting Patent Laws and Scope

    Australia views patents on software as undesirable and acts accordingly, making nobody angry except a bunch of law firms that profited from litigation and patent maximalism



  25. EPO 'Business' From the United States Has Nosedived and UPC is on Its Death Throes

    Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot further accelerate the ultimate demise of the EPO (getting rid of experienced and thus 'expensive' staff), for which there is no replacement because there is a monopoly (which means Europe will suffer severely)



  26. Links 17/11/2017: KDE Applications 17.12, Akademy 2018 Plans

    Links for the day



  27. Today's EPO and Team UPC Do Not Work for Europe But Actively Work Against Europe

    The tough reality that some Europeans actively work to undermine science and technology in Europe because they personally profit from it and how this relates to the Unitary Patent (UPC), which is still aggressively lobbied for, sometimes by bribing/manipulating the media, academia, and public servants



  28. Links 16/11/2017: WordPress 4.9 and GhostBSD 11.1 Released

    Links for the day



  29. The Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) is Rightly Upset If Not Shocked at What Battistelli and Bergot Are Doing to the Office

    The EPO's dictatorial management is destroying everything that's left (of value) at the Office while corrupting academia and censoring discussion by threatening those who publish comments (gagging its own staff even when that staff posts anonymously)



  30. EPO Continues to Disobey the Law on Software Patents in Europe

    Using the same old euphemisms, e.g. "computer-implemented inventions" (or "CII"), the EPO continues to grant patents which are clearly and strictly out of scope


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