HomeComputingMobileInternetGamingElectronicsExtremeDealsExtremeTechComputingUS Supreme Court deals major blow against software patents and patent trollsUS Supreme Court deals major blow against software patents and patent trollsBy Ryan Whitwam on June 20, 2014 at 1:30 pmComment
Share This articleThe current US Supreme Court is one of the most divided in history, but the justices managed to come together for a unanimous decision this week to strike a blow against software patents. The Court has narrowed the definition of an invention in the US to exclude abstract ideas that have simply been implemented on a computer. Some were hoping that the Court would make broad statements about the (in)validity of software patents in general, but this is still a step in the right direction.
The case in question pitted Alice Corp against CLS Bank Int, both financial institutions of which you’ve likely never heard. Lawsuits between banking companies have the potential to be tremendously boring, but this one could have ripple effects through much of the tech industry. The Court’s decision today basically says that tacking on “then do it on a computer” to an existing idea is not patentable.
It sounds a little bizarre on the face of it. Surely people would not be so bold as to simply toss in a generic computerization step and apply for a patent, right? It’s actually a well-known loophole and a favorite of patent trolls. In this case, Alice Corp claimed a patent on escrow services, which have existed for centuries. Oh, but Alice had the brilliant idea of doing escrow on a computer. The ruling striking down Alice’s patent is 20 pages long, which is short for a Supreme Court opinion. In it, Justice Clarence Thomas attempts to set a standard by which these fringe software patents can be judged — generic computer implementation doesn’t make an abstract idea patentable.
The reasoning used in the opinion is strikingly similar to another of the Court’s recent patent cases, that of Myriad Genetics. In that case, the Court unanimously decided that human genes cannot be patented, and invalidated the Utah-based company’s claim on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are important for diagnosing breast and ovarian cancers. It’s the same deal — you cannot apply a common technique to a non-patentable idea and magically have a patent (even if it was hard to do).
We’re probably not looking at the end of patent trolling, but some of the particularly egregious patents out there are in trouble. True patent trolls often rely on incredibly broad business method patents that use the “do it on a computer” loophole. For example, sell a thing, but do it with a computer. Or distribute a newsletter on a computer. [Read: The Patent War: Is it killing innovation?]
These exceptionally lame patents aren’t instantly dead, but lower courts could easily point to the Supreme Court ruling and toss them out. This screws up the business model of patent trolls, which relies mainly on intimidating people with protracted and expensive legal battles. The trolls lose their leverage when many of these generic software patents are likely to be invalidated the first time they come before a judge.
Tagged In softwareusapatentslegalpatent trollingSupreme Courtsoftware patentsShare This Article .article {margin:0px !important;}.AR_1 {margin :0 0 20px 0 !important;}.AR_2 {margin:0 0 20px 0;} CommentPost a Comment Heath ParsonsFinally. I’ve been waiting for something like this. Apple is probably crying right now, wondering how they’re going to get money if they can’t win legal battles.
bmwman91I generally dislike Apple products and own zero of them personally, but it is pretty easy to see that they are hugely profitable because people want their stuff, not because they fought legal battles over status bars and unlock screens. They are hugely established as a brand and lifestyle in consumers’ minds and will continue to sell very well no matter who might copy them or how blatantly.
anghhttp://adamwhitaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Apple-slide-to-lock.jpg
WatDahMan, get over it. Apple makes billions because people wants and buys their products. You may not like them, and you don’t have to, but millions of others do. Keep in mind they won those cases, what does that tell you?
kixOnly wone inamerika. The lost evyweere else.
http://www.said-it.cu.cc/ Kyle Stephensnow does this mean torrents are legal? meanwhile, “was” should be “were.” subjunctive verb.
Joel DetrowTorrents ARE legal. It’s downloading copyrighted content that’s illegal.
massauyes and no, in some states , countries uploading is iligal. in others downloading it, in some uploading the torrent itself but seeding isn’t.
there isn’t any universak law.
anghTorrent is a protocol. It cannot be illegal. It is just a way of sending the information through the internet. If i’ll take a picture of sunset and want to send it to number of people I can just use torrent to do it. Saying that torrent is illegal is like saying that google drive or onedrive is illegal. Protocol and .torrent are legal and quite usefull, many online mmo games are using it to send the game client faster. Some people are using it to illegally distribute copyright protected media files, but this makes they attempt illegal not the torrent protocol. In same way that having a penis is not illegal, but raping another person is.
dcthey should eliminate patents.
ZunalterExactly! Why should people be able to protect and profit from their creative brilliance and innovation?! Their lives work belongs to all of us. Am I right, comrades?
dcexactly, good points.
Joel DetrowNot eliminate, just take back to the original idea, which I believe was a seven year duration, with ONE extension allowed for another seven years. The idea is that if you haven’t recouped your investment by then, someone else can probably do it better. Free markets and all that.
Dan045This doesn’t work in combo with the FDA (etc) taking more than 7 years to approve a product.
Joel DetrowIt wouldn’t be hard to write in specific exemptions for products which require approval from some government agency, such as the FDA or FTC, such that the timer begins when the product finishes making it through said agency. If it passes inspection/testing, great. If it doesn’t, they won’t be selling it anyway, so there’s no need for a patent then.
massauthis and the patent should be crystal clear about what it is and what it includes. so we cannot get something like slide to unlock and rounded corner rectangular patents.
Darris HawksI just think they should restrict the application process and then charge an ever-increasing rate to keep the patent active.
So $100 for year 1, $1k for year 2, $5k for year 3, $10k for year 4 until it becomes too expensive or the company decides it’s not worth it.
It protects their idea of intellectual property and bolsters the public coffers.
We are commiing up in a new era now. Things could be good if Patent Trolls dies off.
adamrussellSeems like I read something similar recently about a company trying to patent matchmaking – on a computer. Nice that the ussc has made the decision final, at least for this loophole.
Ivor O’Connor“The current US Supreme Court is one of the most divided in history” Huh?
I gave up on our supreme court a long time ago because it is filled with people who only care about corporate special interests. The little guy like us is not an issue other than to be taken advantage of. I decided to go check it out though and see if my gut feelings were reflected in reality. First off I realize four were appointed by democrats and five by republicans. Which might make some people think they are “divided” but not me. I see no real difference between democrats and republicans other than each side wants you to passionately hate the other and run to them for protection from the other side.
So look at the court cases they had to vote on last year. They are primarily corporate related. And controlled by whoever has the most money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_term_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#2013_term_opinions
So you think if they are divided they might have different opinions. Hardly! They all voted with each other 81% to 93% of the time. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_term_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#2013_term_membership_and_statistics A little math here shows the average was 88% of the time they agreed with each other. That means on each of the 63 cases last year there was one justice that took the opposing view and the other 8 voted together against it. Let me rephrase that:
88%*9=7.9 justices agreed with each other on average for all 63 cases in 2013. They only are concerned with crony capitalism and they all vote for it.
FollowFollow @ExtremeTech!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');ExtremeTech Newsletter
Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.
More Articles
ET deals: Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SSD for $400 Jun 20
The first ‘unfeelability’ invisibility cloak will please campers and princesses everywhere Jun 20
T-Mobile Un-carrier 5 and 6: Free iPhone loans, VoLTE, and unmetered music Jun 20
AMD claims it can deliver 25x energy efficiency improvement in the next six years Jun 20
Dalvik is dead: Next version of Android uses new ART runtime to boost speed, battery life Jun 20 About ExtremeTechAdvertisingContact ExtremeTechET ForumsTerms of UsePrivacy PolicyZiff DavisJobsUse of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2014 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.
This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.
No comments:
Post a Comment