Breaking News
News & Analysis

Supreme Court Rules Against Software Patents

Decision creates gray 'generic' term
6/19/2014 08:30 PM EDT
30 comments
NO RATINGS
1 saves
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 3 / 3
rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Hard/soft distinctions
rick merritt   6/22/2014 8:10:02 AM
NO RATINGS
Don't we in the tech industry think of hardware and software distinctions as blurred these days? A chip is several lines of RTL code. 

Isn't the court behind the commercial reality?

Crusty1
User Rank
CEO
Re: Jual Es Krim
Crusty1   6/21/2014 2:26:43 PM
NO RATINGS
But would that improvement be a subject for patent? However good idea

Sanjib.A
User Rank
CEO
Software patent
Sanjib.A   6/21/2014 1:30:03 PM
NO RATINGS
" The justices ruled that the software was generic and did not make technical advancements or improve how the computer functioned." It talks about anything that does not improve the technology behind how the computer functions today would not be eligible for winning a patent. The statement itself sounds very broad to me. The same could be applicable for the hardware too...correct? I am not sure if I have understood correctly...e.g. how about innovations/novelties related to how the data is presented to the users?

anon8743502537
User Rank
Rookie
An Intellectually Bankrupt Opinion
anon8743502537   6/20/2014 11:36:31 PM
NO RATINGS
I think judge Thomas put a pubic hair in my software patents.

This decision provides no guidance whatsoever on what is "too abstract."  Why should software be treated differently from other methods?  The patent statutes clearly allow methods to be patented and isn't most software just methods performed on a computer?

The Supreme Court sidesteped precedent in Diamond v Diehr that stated that the novelty of claim steps should not be considered when evaluating whether a claim is statutory.

They used Mayo v Prometheus as a template and seem to say that automating a manual process is not sufficient to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101. Why they didn't use 103 is anyone's guess.

The court here conflated the issues of obviousness (35 USC 103) and statutory subject matter (35 USC 101).  They are supposed to be two separate inquiries.  If these claims were so conventional, other than the addition of the computer, they should have been invalidated using 35 USC 103 as being obvious.  But the claims were not that obvious in my opinion.  By using a computer, the order of certain steps was changed due to the speed of the computer.

I have included a more in depth analysis of this case in my history of software patents at patentsusa.blogspot.com

 

przem
User Rank
Manager
Re: About time
przem   6/20/2014 5:49:36 PM
NO RATINGS
One of the problems with the fashionable Intelectual Property concept is that it commingles patents, copyrights and trademarks. Disney is all about copyrights---I don't think they have many patents, especially in the high tech area. Having said that, they do indeed make excessive use of various extensions granted in the copyright law, in my opinion.

I will grant you a point that both patents and copyrights are being stretched and abused beyond their original role. The basic copyright and patent protections are reasonable---it's just all the amendments and tweaks that the influential players lobbied for and procured that are hurting us.

LarryM99
User Rank
CEO
Re: About time
LarryM99   6/20/2014 4:18:13 PM
NO RATINGS
Agreed. At one point I accepted the argument that strong patent protection was the mark of an advanced business environment, but I now realize that too much of it is the mark of one that is in decline. Having a good idea at some point in the past doesn't mean that you get to live off it indefinitely. That also applies to Disney, particularly since they are mostly living off of stuff that they stole from the public domain in the first place.

Larry M.

sixscrews
User Rank
Manager
About time
sixscrews   6/20/2014 1:03:51 PM
Patents are for things you can hold in your hand or, at least, have a physical existence either in hardware or software that affects the external hardware.  Patents that cover a numinous exchange of undefined ideas aren't patents - they are junk that clogs up the system and more food for trolls.

For once the Supremes got it right.

ss/wb

DrFPGA
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Jual Es Krim
DrFPGA   6/20/2014 12:13:04 PM
NO RATINGS
Yep- we need a way for a comment to flag possible spam. Can that be added? Maybe the Rate It button could include 'SPAM' as an option...

prabhakar_deosthali
User Rank
CEO
Re: Jual Es Krim
prabhakar_deosthali   6/20/2014 7:56:14 AM
NO RATINGS
I was referring to this comment as SPAM

prabhakar_deosthali
User Rank
CEO
Dear Editor
prabhakar_deosthali   6/20/2014 2:33:04 AM
NO RATINGS
This looks to be some kind of SPAM!

<<   <   Page 3 / 3
Most Recent Comments
Aeroengineer
 
pelleplutt
 
Max The Magnificent
 
mhrackin
 
vvc0
 
Aeroengineer
 
antedeluvian
 
Max The Magnificent
 
Max The Magnificent
Flash Poll
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week