Bonum Certa Men Certa

Software Patents Are Against the First Amendment, Rules a CAFC Judge in Historic Decision That is Another Nail in the Software Patents Coffin

Screenshots taken by Jan Wildeboer (Red Hat)

Opinion on IV



Opinion on IV



Summary: Further reinforcing the current trend, software patents' demise in the United States has just been ascertained again, even if legal firms and patent maximalists prefer not to comment on it (as it would give this latest decision more visibility)

THE latest decision (see portions above) from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is eye-catching, but either it hasn't caught the eye of legal firms or they're just trying to ignore it, so we'll be covering it more than we usually cover such decisions. We have made a local copy [PDF] (original here) of the full decision. We also mentioned it earlier today and yesterday, reaffirming that several software patents are dead, potentially implicating many more (by precedence/extrapolation).



Jan Wildeboer wrote to us (and few others) [1, 2]: "Wow! Software patents can violate #1stamendment according to #CAFC judge! [...] Can't get enough. Judge defines patent trolls. #CAFC level. Huge. Page 36..."

Some people are also writing to us about it in our IRC channels today. They want this subject covered.

Where is the news coverage about it? It has been several days since this decision and patent law firms are still a month behind the times (McRO again), obsessing over very old news. Consider as a new example Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox's "Patent Rights in the U.S.: Is the Pendulum Finally Swinging Back to Center?" (earlier today)

They speak about McRO while ignoring everything that has happened since. Shame on them. It seems as though bad legal advice from patent law firms is becoming the norm. They mislead scientists for cash (litigation, patent applications etc.), attempting to convince them that patents on algorithms are still a 'thing' after Alice. One does not even need to sue a company with software patents in order to lose these patents, owing to inter partes reviews (IPRs). The above lawyers reveal their biases with their obligatory rants about PTAB, stating that "PTAB [is] causing uncertainty over validity and enforcement of patents."

We are still waiting to see patent law firms which offer their bogus 'analyses' (if any) of this latest CAFC ruling on software patents; they hope we don't see it, judging by the fact that only Patently-O wrote about it (we covered it this morning). The ruling is very important because it serves to demonstrate a loss for patent trolls and for software patents (or patent trolls that use software patents, which is typical). The decision criticises patent trolling as well.

Judging by this new press release (from Trend Micro, which is itself a patent aggressor, not the patent microcosm), some other companies breathe in relief.

So far, based on our research, only one press article has been published about this decision. It's titled "Here’s Why Software Patents Are in Peril After the Intellectual Ventures Ruling" and it says:

The end may be in sight for software patents—which have long been highly controversial in the tech industry—in the wake of a remarkable appeals court ruling that described such patents as a “deadweight loss on the nation’s economy” and a threat to the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

The ruling, issued on Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, found that three patents asserted against anti-virus companies Symantec symc and Trend Micro were invalid because they did not describe a patentable invention. The patents were owned by Intellectual Ventures, which has a notorious reputation in the tech world as a so-called “patent troll,” a phrase that describes firms that buy up old patents and wage lawsuits in order to demand payments from productive companies.

[...]

Software Patents as a Threat to Free Speech



Friday’s ruling is also significant because Judge Mayer eschews the insider baseball language that typically dominates patent law, and addresses patents in the broader context of technology and government monopolies.

Pointing out that intellectual property monopolies can limit free speech, Mayer notes that copyright law has built-in First Amendment protections such as “fair use” and that patent law must include similar safeguards. He suggests that the safeguard comes in the form of a part of the Patent Act, known as “Section 101,” which says some things—including abstract ideas—simply can’t be patented in the first place.


IAM 'magazine' has not said anything about this decision. So much for 'news'; it was so quick to crow about McRO (beating everybody to it), but not a word about Intellectual Ventures? They have just released a new issue of the magazine and this time the Intellectual Ventures troll is not on their main feature/cover page (puff pieces galore); not this time around...

Over at Twitter IAM wrote: "Trolls don't fight it out in the courtroom. They seek to leverage low quality patents to secure quick licensing wins" (does not mention Intellectual Ventures)

Funny that IAM mentions the VirnetX case but not Intellectual Ventures, which speaks directly to IAM. This case was actually mentioned here twice in the past few days alone and it was challenged in court. David Kravets wrote about it, publishing this article that clarifies Texan courts (i.e. notorious bias) ruled on it, not CAFC:

An East Texas jury concluded late Friday that Apple must pay a patent troll $302.4 million in damages for infringing two patents connected to Apple's FaceTime communication application.

The verdict is the third in the long-running case in which two earlier verdicts were overturned—one on appeal and the other by the Tyler, Texas federal judge presiding over the 6-year-long litigation.

The latest outcome is certain to renew the same legal arguments that were made in the earlier cases: Apple, for one, has maintained all along that the evidence doesn't support infringement. VirnetX, as it did in the past and is now doing, is seeking more damages for what it says is "willful" infringement on Apple's part. What's more, in the previous litigation, the Nevada patent-holding company had asked the judge to shutter the Apple service at issue. Apple has maintained that such a demand was made "So that it can be used to extract a massive licensing fee."

The case began with four of VirnetX's patents (1, 2, 3, 4), which had originated at a company called Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC. VirnetX has been saying for years that it plans to market various products, but its income comes from licensing patents.


If Apple can escalate this upwards, then a court like CAFC would quite likely invalidate the patents, as usual. The higher one goes (in the courts/legal system), the less room for mischief and leeway for software patents. It's a shame that courts lower down don't obey rulings that are handed from above, especially courts that are based in Texas.

Comments

Recent Techrights' Posts

Google, FSFE & Child labor
Reprinted with permission from the Free Software Fellowship
[Video] Trainline Finally Issues a Refund, But It Took 9 Days and Showed How 'Modern' Systems Fail Travelers
They treat people like a bunch of animals or cattle, not like valuable customers
 
Links 13/04/2024: Whistleblowers, OpenAI and Microsoft Leakers
Links for the day
'Our' Technology Inside the Home is Becoming Less Reliable and It Implements the Vision of Orwell's '1984' (Microphones and Cameras Inside Almost Every Room)
Technology controlled by who exactly?
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Friday, April 12, 2024
IRC logs for Friday, April 12, 2024
Links 13/04/2024: Huawei and Loongson PCs, IBM Layoffs
Links for the day
Gemini Links 13/04/2024: Specification Changes and Metaverse Newbie
Links for the day
Links 12/04/2024: Big Brother in the Workplace and Profectus Browser Alpha 0.3
Links for the day
WIPO UDRP D2024-0770 Debian vendetta response
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Links 12/04/2024: Reporters Without Borders Rep Kicked Out of Hong Kong
Links for the day
Gemini Links 12/04/2024: Funny Thing, Manual Scripts, and More
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Thursday, April 11, 2024
IRC logs for Thursday, April 11, 2024
DebConf22 Kosovo segregation of women exposed
Reprinted with permission from disguised.work
Links 11/04/2024: Web Diversity and More Crackdowns in Russia
Links for the day
Gemini Links 11/04/2024: Activity and Motivation in Geminispace, gwit Implementations
Links for the day
First They Came for Iranian Developers...
Red Hat/IBM and 'cancel culture'
[Video] A Debian Project Leader Needs to Also be a Technical Project Leader
We do not vouch for one (or none) horse in this race
Aggressive Efforts (and Threats) for Those Who Speak About What Happened in the Balkans
Acting in this way in an effort to censor people typically results in a second scandal on top of the original scandal
How Kosovo won DebConf21
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
[Video] How the Media Blamed SSH and Linux (for Nearly a Whole Fortnight!) Instead of Microsoft's GitHub and Systemd
Microsoft-connected sites have said a whole bunch of lies
Anzacathon: a hackathon for Anzac day at home
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, April 10, 2024
IRC logs for Wednesday, April 10, 2024
On Julian Assange, Now 5 Years in Belmarsh Prison: The Good News, the Bad News, and Ugly Noise
Some time this spring (or summer) we'll revisit the Appelbaum case