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

11.10.09

Bilski Hearing Starts Well for Abolishers of Software Patents

Posted in Courtroom, Law, Patents at 3:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Bill ski

Summary: Early reports suggest that judges are hostile towards abstract patents like Bilski’s

Bilski can end software patents, as we last noted yesterday. In fact, Biz Journals has just published an article with an ambitious headline:

Supreme Court may invalidate software patents

Acquiring, using and defending software patents has become big business — sometimes playing a vital role in a company’s success — but that could all change if the Supreme Court decides software can no longer be patented.

The first word from the Bilski hearing can be found in SCOTUS Blog.

It took less than two minutes Monday for the high-stakes patent case in the Supreme Court to descend to the level of questioning whether “Lorenzo Jones” could get a patent on one of his hare-brained inventions, if Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw could get one on their theory about managing business risk. “Jones,” an old-time radio figure who thought his creations in a garage would bring him fame and fortune, made an appearance in the first question, by Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Legal Times argues that “Justices overall seemed hostile to a broad view of patent eligibility that would include intangible business processes.” To quote more broadly:

The long-awaited Supreme Court patent law showdown in Bilski v. Kappos is over, and it not looking good for business method patents — or at least the one at issue in the case. Justices overall seemed hostile to a broad view of patent eligibility that would include intangible business processes.

A big fan of software patents was actually there, and he independently indicates that the SCOTUS disliked the Bilski patent. This is good. There were also many people in there. To quote: “Now as I was ushered into the courtroom with other members of the press I was surprised to see that myself, and about ten others, were given limited view seating, sitting behind Romanesque columns adorned with velvet maroon drapes with gold braided strands touching the floor.

“US Supreme Court openly takes the piss out of Bilski’s lawyer,” asserts our reader David Gerard, who read some of the above. Here is the transcript [PDF] and another analysis of the Bilski v. Kappos hearing, courtesy of Patently-O. Thanks to Geza Giedke for the links.

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

2 Comments

  1. David Gerard said,

    November 10, 2009 at 4:52 am

    Gravatar

    In fairness, subjecting an arguing lawyer to that sort of thing is standard in the Supreme Court. They are, after all, there to beat the crap out of your arguments. If you don’t leave feeling like they’re going to have you hanged for the sake of it, they’re arguably not doing their job.

    We’ll see if they subject the defendants to similar.

  2. Jose_X said,

    November 10, 2009 at 10:16 am

    Gravatar

    Just posted here http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/11/supreme-court-hears-bilski-v-kappos.html . [There were interesting comments there.]

    *******
    Part of the problem is that we are ignoring “to promote the progress of science and useful arts.”

    When trying to answer this question, you have to take context into account, context that includes things like who are the parties being affected negatively and what are the costs involved to the players (and by extension, to society).

    Software enables a much larger group of players to participate than is the case in many other types of fields of engineering/science/manufacturing, and all but one of which who would be affected very negatively by patent monopoly grants. The cost structure for software is very different. The essence of software is very different: you can’t clone physical objects, modify them, and redistribute them at costs of zero time and money.

    Why is this context important? Because in some cases, the gains from monopolies might help to promote the progress — if the costs of the monopolies are in practice not that large; however, when many’s hands are bound, every second that thus passes is a loss. Few have access to steel manufacturing plants independent of patents, for example. Conversely, many have access to software. The worlds best software can be created tomorrow in 10 garages around the world in cooperation through the Internet. And almost surely, they will have to reuse many many ideas from others, ideas that perhaps they derived themselves but which likely could have been the subject of patents within the last few years.

    There are motivations for creating software beyond to make a buck. While true for most items, software can be distributed and consumed at virtually zero marginal cost. This is a characteristic of a “product” unheard of in the past (and enabled by the Internet). If this applied to cogs, we’d find many people creating great new cogs for new uses and giving them away (building a business in some other way.. or as charity) because this would cost nothing except their time. Of course, in practice this is not possible and patents on cogs do get in the way. Yes, software is different. It’s literature and math no matter how many computers it helps drive. Patenting software stifles and hurts many that would otherwise contribute much to society.

    If there are a few special cases deemed worthy, then the government can give prizes or other forms of incentives that don’t curtail the rights of others. Unlike with free public electromagnetic spectrum or with water or land, the use of software can be done virtually by anyone to any degree without negatively impacting anyone else. And where this isn’t the case, exceptions can be made on a case by case basis (eg, yelling “fire” in a crowded location).

    Also, we are ignoring things like the ridiculous broad scope of patents or the fact that with many more inventors participating, even impressive inventions get rediscovered fairly routinely.

    In fact, the patent system (broad scope == more power) rewards those that know the details less well over those that take the time to learn more details. The initial hare to hop along to the USPTO gets dominance over the careful tortoise. And the dominance is very very significant and is over many many unforeseen future inventions over many many years.

    Those not patenting, and there are real costs in time and money to patent, especially if you want it for defensive purposes, are getting a very very short end of the stick against those with patents. A broad patent lets you stop the world. A much more brilliant prior art (without patent) means next to zilch as you aren’t even guaranteed to be able to develop your invention further if patent holders come and get in your way. So they leveraged your brilliance and extra time and effort for $0 and virtually no restrictions while their mediocrity and rush catapults them into monopolies over your progress and over the progress of many other inventors and their unforeseen inventions.

    Getting back to context, the Internet allows collaboration that did not exist before. Patents before made a little more sense. Today, the costs (from monopolies) to impede the otherwise gains from the Internet are that much greater than in the past. Progress is not promoted as frequently as it might have in the past (no matter the invention).

    Today’s patent rules encourage individuals to optimize being first no matter if 1000 similar inventions would occur that year. Even unobvious inventions can get reinvented in spades over the course of a single year, much less over 20 years. And because of the broad scope, that patented vague idea can stop many amazing inventions that would otherwise follow, inventions related only because someone was able to use English to express in concise form the commonalities among that potentially very broad class of inventions. The general terms require much less knowledge than the intricate details. In short, today’s rules encourage patent writers to look at what others are doing (easier to do today because so much gets created and posted on the Internet) and then generalize and beat them all to the USPTO to gain their supermonopolies.

    Finally, I do believe that much new hardware should not be patentable is there is no new technology at play (if there is, then that aspect can get a patent). Merely the expression in hardware (as in software) of ideas without leveraging any new physical transformation is but a rewriting of the same physical storyline. Many people daily add creative actions to their jobs. Should they all get patents (as many of the justices pointed out)? Merely moving circuits around into a new configuration is a new use of an existing technology: the configuration is novel (as is math and literature and many things in life that many people create every minute) but the machine has no novel transformations, etc.. However, we may still allow a limited form of monopoly in the cases of material goods in order to help offset manufacturing costs. Then again, there is first to market and trade secret protections (and copyright protections) already at play. These are motivation to in fact innovate and create new products (even if we only look at monetary motivations). This inventor/manufacturer did not have to invest in new technology but merely produced a new flavor using existing technology.

    Note that software (and eg hardware designed through verilog using existing models and technological processes) works off a fixed abstract machine. There is however some unavoidable degree of engineering around imperfections when new processes are developed. This latter does support that some degree of monopoly protection might help. Otherwise, it’s a trivial step to convert the ideal software creation into a product or into a use. There are no surprises and extra engineering needed when we attach the physical machine.

    Summary: don’t curtail the mind or hand-cuff inventors. Software on a PC and even in new gadgets (depending on circumstances) is a very low barrier playing field. This means monopolies will have huge costs. Gain 10 monopolies (things you could still do without a patent system) but lose many many times that number in things you can’t do but otherwise could were it not for the patents others took out. With a low barrier playing field, patents remove/abridge many many rights; they exact a huge cost.

    All monopolies not justified by the Constitution (eg, if they don’t promote the progress of science and useful arts) abridge individual’s rights and hence violate the 1st, 9th, and/or 10th Amendments.

    I am not a lawyer. A flaw in the above argument should not condemn the rest. I also rushed this post. There is so much to be said over this tragedy that is software patents.

    Thanks for taking the time to hear me out.

    PS: FOSS is a proof of concept of the costs involved and injustices that would occur (to society and to individual’s rights) if we allow software monopolies. While some painstakingly build, others summarize those inventions and hence gain supermonopoly rights. And the bias is clearly towards the wealthy, discriminating against not just those that prefer to develop inventions instead of patents but against those with lower monetary resources.
    *******

What Else is New


  1. Patent Troll MPEG-LA Expands From Software Patents to Patents on Life While USPTO is Virtually Headless

    The travesty of software patents, such as patents on multimedia compression and playback, may soon be made worse as patents on genome are being aggregated by a notorious patent aggressor



  2. Lack of Independence of the Boards of Appeal at the European Patent Organisation (EPO) a Fatal Blow for the UPC

    Issues associated with the EPC, namely the lack of separation of powers at the EPO, may mean that the UPC is merely a zombie waiting to accept its permanent death



  3. [DE] STRASBOURG: Vertreter der Lufthansa wegen Korruption angeklagt

    Laut manche internationale Quellen wurde Željko Topić gerade wegen korruptiven und kriminellen Neigungen, mit welchen er von Natur begabt ist und mit welchen er den internationalen Korporationen beim Schutz von zwielichtigen Patenten in der Republik Kroatien geholfen hat, eigentlich belohnt mit der Arbeitsstelle in EPO in München, obwohl er laut seine Kenntnisse und seine Mentalität dorthin nicht gehört. Dafür spricht auch die Angabe, daß er als Person mit Komplexen neulich seinen Wohnsitz in Zagreb geändert hat.



  4. Links 21/7/2017: New Wine, Ubuntu EoL

    Links for the day



  5. The Bizarre World of US Patents and Ongoing Pursuit/Granting of Software Patents in Spite of Section 101

    A survey of recent patents that are either far too trivial, pertain purely to software, promote surveillance, or are pursued purely for vanity (when a court is likely to deem these invalid anyway)



  6. Battistelli's EPO Abuses May Soon Lead to the Death of the UPC and Return of the Old Order ('EPO Glory')

    Having severely damaged the EPO, in a selfish effort to make Europe attractive to patent trolls and bullies, Team Battistelli gradually goes away along with the UPC



  7. Links 20/7/2017: Qt Creator 4.4 Beta, Libgcrypt 1.8.0

    Links for the day



  8. Microsoft is Googlebombing “Linux” This Week in Order to Sell Proprietary Software That Does Not Run on GNU/Linux (and While Blackmailing OEMs Over Linux)

    A reminder of the fact that Microsoft very much hates GNU/Linux, lobbies against it (e.g. in Munich), blackmails companies that distribute it (using software patents) and shares all data stored by its software through back doors (for access by the NSA and other Western spy agencies)



  9. PTAB Persists and AIA Dominates in Spite of Smears and Bullying From Patent Extremists Including Watchtroll

    The America Invents Act (AIA) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) maintain and gain prominence in spite of nefarious tactics of attack sites such as Watchtroll



  10. Patent Reform in the United States is Led by the Supreme Court, Not Industrial Lobbies

    Although lobbying by large corporations has served to change the patent landscape in the US, a lot of the big changes become possible because Justices with no vested interests (in patents and patent lawsuits) overturn decisions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit



  11. Unified Patent Court (UPC): A Conspiracy of Lies and Silence

    The impasse which makes impossible any progress on the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is simply being ignored -- as if it never happened -- by Team UPC



  12. The British Government May be Pulling Out of the UPC Fantasy, Team UPC in Panic or Denial About It

    The latest news about the UPC -- news that Team UPC conveniently ignores -- is that the British government "withdrew motion on Unified Patent Court with no notice"



  13. Links 19/7/2017: MPV 0.26, Netrunner Rolling 2017.07

    Links for the day



  14. Links 18/7/2017: Sparky 5.0, Krita 3.2 Beta, Mageia 6, Slackware Turns 24

    Links for the day



  15. New Paper Explains Why UPC Ratification Efforts Have Been Just About as Corrupt as EPO Under Battistelli

    Yesterday, Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna revealed serious Constitutional issues with the campaign for the Unified Patent Court, which resembles an aggressive Battistelli-esque coup, not a democratic process by any stretch of imagination



  16. Anti-Patent Trolls Reform in the US Evolves Nicely and Rogue Judges Get Named, Shamed

    A quick look at today's coverage regarding the battle against patent trolls in the US, as well as the patent microcosm's war on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)



  17. Software Patents Lobbying at IAM Strives to Reinforce the Positions of Patent Maximalists

    The latest push for software patents in the software powerhouse which is India and rants about the EPO's admission about overpatenting, only after pressure from the European Commission



  18. UPC Puff Piece in the Scottish Media is Just an Advertisement by Marks & Clerk

    Advertising in the form of an 'article' (complete with self-serving bias and falsehoods) in The Scotsman today, courtesy of Team UPC



  19. From East to West and Even Down South at the Eastern District of Texas Patent Trolls Are Losing Everything

    Patent trolls that are accustomed to friendly judges, typically in the Eastern District of Texas, will be circling down the drain if the trend of "fee award" (to the vindicated defendant) continues



  20. Those Who Endlessly Attacked Michelle Lee Now Attack Supporters of PTAB, Not Just PTAB

    Watchtroll, which combats patent progress by character assassination of instrumental figures, continues in its warpath today



  21. In the Face of Malicious Lobbying, High Tech Inventors Alliance (HTIA) and Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) Protect PTAB

    A new push by the patent microcosm to eliminate PTAB and marginalise Section 101 (which helps suppress software patents) is quickly met with opposition from concerned politicians and groups that represent actual technology companies



  22. Weakening of Patents Assigned to Google and Another New Patent Lawsuit Against Uber

    Project Loon patent canceled, Google's lawsuit against Uber gets 'diluted' by 75%, and Uber faces a new lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas (capital of patent trolls)



  23. After the 'Fall' of Texas, Patent Trolls Struggle and Some Are on the Retreat

    Things are getting out of hand for patent trolls, which find themselves on the defensive (from challenges to all their patents) and try to escape the cases they started in order to dodge paying fees (to no avail)



  24. Immersion, FitBit, Jawbone, and Creative Chose to be a Pile of Patents Rather Than Real Companies

    FitBit is the latest company to be slapped by Immersion (having already driven Jawbone out of business) and there's news about Creative, which uses old patents to shake down Apple and Android OEMs



  25. Debate About Software Patentability in India Still Dominated by Patent Lawyers Rather Than Software Developers

    The warped debate in English-speaking media gives the impression that India should open the door to software patents even though it's perfectly clear that such patents would harm India's interests



  26. Links 16/7/2017: Mesa 17.1.5, FreeBSD 11.1 RC3

    Links for the day



  27. Serious Factual Errors in UPC Coverage at Science|Business and Lack of Coverage in the General Media

    With much of the British media already paid by the EPO to produce UPC puff pieces, we continue to see poor coverage on the topic (if any at all)



  28. Guest Post: Is Germany's UPC Ratification Postponement Related to Problems at the  EPO?

    A question currently being asked by some people watching UPC developments in Germany: "Is Germany's UPC ratification postponement related to problems at the EPO?"



  29. Amazon is Stockpiling Terrible Patents and Using These for Competitive Advantage

    Demonstrating the real purpose of patent hoards, Amazon too 'pulls a Microsoft' and shields its dominance by an atmosphere of sheer fear



  30. Microsoft-Owned LinkedIn is Ramping Up Software Patents Pursuits, Maybe Lawsuits

    A quick look at some of the patterns and priorities when it comes to Microsoft's patent strategy, which typically involves coercion, extortion and sometimes (when coercion or extortion fail) litigation


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