Supreme Court Tosses 'Abstract' Software Patent

[y4m]

This is exciting!  A blow to patent trolls like the one threatening my company because he has a patent on the concept of "sending URLs via text message"

--------------------

The Supreme Court on Thursday tossed out an Australian company's patent for business software in a decision that clarifies standards for awarding patents, but not as much as some firms had hoped.

In a case closely watched by technology companies, justices ruled unanimously that the government should not have issued a patent to Alice Corp. in the 1990s because the company simply took an abstract idea that has been around for years and programmed it to run through a computer.

The decision makes clear that to obtain a patent, a company's idea must actually improve how a computer functions or make other technical advancements. It could also help technology firms mount a stronger defense against so-called patent trolls — companies that buy up patents and force businesses to pay license fees or face costly litigation.

The software at issue allows a neutral third party to make sure all parties to a financial trade have lived up to their obligations. New York-based CLS Bank International claimed the patent was invalid.

"We conclude that the method claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention," Justice Clarence Thomas said, writing for the court.

Dozens of technology firms — including Google and Facebook — submitted friend of the court briefs in the case, asking the high court to restrict the free flow of software patents they say are often too vague and can block other companies from innovation. But other companies, such as IBM, warned that too many new restrictions could nullify thousands of existing patents and discourage companies from investing in research and development.

John L. Cuddihy, a patent attorney in the nation's capital, said the court's decision offers "clarity and helpful guideposts," but "wisely tried not to over-specify the standards for determining eligibility of computer-based patents."

He said the ruling makes it easier for companies fighting patent troll litigation to argue that flimsy patents should not have been granted in the first place.

But Jennifer Spaith, a Seattle patent attorney, said the court could have offered more guidance on how patent standards should apply to the latest innovations, such as wearable technology, cloud computing and social media that are changing how people communicate and work.

"The Supreme Court did not offer tools for identifying patentable subject matter in these other intangible areas, so patentees will continue to battle uncertainty in these spaces," Spaith said.

Patents give inventors legal protection to prevent others from making, using or selling a novel device, process or application. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that abstract ideas, natural phenomena and laws of nature cannot be patented.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had ruled that Alice Corp.'s patent was invalid, but only five of those on the 10-member panel of judges could agree on why.

The Obama administration had urged the court to invalidate the Alice patent and asked the justices offer more clarity to help lower courts decide what is and isn't valid. The administration said several factors should be considered, including whether the software improves how the computer functions or uses a computer to improve how another technological process works.

The case is Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 13-298.
abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/supreme-court-tosses-software-patent-24210428

[ESF]

Interesting.  I'm not surprised, and it's the right decision.

I didn't realize Facebook and Google were on the side seeking to restrict patents.  Most of the big tech companies are very pro-troll, since they are the biggest trolls of them all.

[Velar Fricative]

I definitely need a "like I'm 5" tutorial about patent law but the parts I can understand are interesting!

[ESF]

Jun 19, 2014 16:42:57 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

I definitely need a "like I'm 5" tutorial about patent law but the parts I can understand are interesting!

I am by no means an expert, but the way software patents were explained to me is that what's happening right now is as if someone patented a recipe for pizza dough, then went after everyone in the country who was selling pizza using that recipe.  You can copyright a specially worded recipe for pizza dough and go after people who sell your words, but you can't patent the invention of pizza dough, and force people to pay you for making it.

So as I understand it, you've got a lot of people that are essentially patenting routine, non-inventive programming scripts.  Then there's all these businesses out there that are making and selling products that use a particular script, but don't even realize it's patented because it's just normal shit. The patent trolls come after them, saying their patent is being infringed on.

"Patent troll" is a controversial term, but it typically refers to "non-practicing entities" that are just shell companies that own patents and go after entities, big and small, to extort money from them.  For a lot of small start ups, the cost of settling is cheaper than fighting.  So they pay.  

Many of the patent trolls are funded by large tech companies, who set up a shell company to go after small businesses to knock them out of the market and steal their ideas.  

ETA - the ruling is important because it's going to limit the kinds of things that can get patented, which means start ups will be better protected and hopefully face fewer infringement lawsuits.  So it's good for innovation and helping to keep the tech world from becoming an oligopoly.  

[alleinesein]

If you frequent fark.com you will learn a lot about patent trolls. Drew Curtis got sued by 1 and 'won' and he had a few articles out there that talk about what they do.

www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-curtis/patentinfringement-lawsui_b_924671.html

[y4m]

There are a lot of kind of BS patents that got awarded early in the life of the internet and computers, where people patented really basic concepts of stuff, but hadn't actually invented anything.

Like for example the one I alluded to in my post. Someone literally owns a patent on the concept of texting someone a web link. If you ever texted someone a link to something, you supposedly violated this guy's patent. He didn't actually create a process or anything, he was just awarded a patent on the concept of someone sending an sms message containing a URL in it. For years, the owner of this patent has said you have to pay him $750K for a license to send text messages that contain URLs. And a bunch of companies (like over 100 of them!) have actually paid it, because that's cheaper than trying to fight it, and sending text messages with links is pretty core to a lot of businesses strategies. It's a huge cost on the system that adds pretty much nothing. You can read more about this specific one here: www.extremetech.com/computing/135267-can-you-patent-a-hyperlink-patent-trolls-sure-think-so

I think patents are generally awesome (yes, even drug ones!). They encourage people to invent awesome stuff because they help ensure that if you do actually invent something, someone else can't copy it. But these ones where no one actually invented anything are crazy.

[NewOrleans]

Jun 19, 2014 15:39:26 GMT -5 y4m said:

 he has a patent on the concept of "sending URLs via text message"

LOL!