Breaking News
News & Analysis

Supreme Court Rules Against Software Patents

Decision creates gray 'generic' term
6/19/2014 08:30 PM EDT
28 comments
NO RATINGS
1 saves
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
goafrit
User Rank
Manager
Re: Dear Editor
goafrit   7/3/2014 10:05:10 PM
NO RATINGS
>>  Similarly if C was patented then we shouldn't have seen so much of growth in software development.

It is the chicken and egg question. The true fact is that the software lawyers are smarter than their hardware equivalents. When you buy Windows and want to build an application on it, you pay Microsoft license on the product. But Intel powers the OS for Windows and they simply pay-out for the hardware. Intel could have also asked for royalty for OS running on their hardware. Oracle gets money from banks running banking applications powered by Oracle. Yet, IBM and co that supply the server do not (only puchase revenue).

goafrit
User Rank
Manager
Re: Hard/soft distinctions
goafrit   7/3/2014 10:01:44 PM
NO RATINGS
>> , I totally agree with you. Software is as important as hardware for optimal systems performance.Some times the performance is limited by the software and not hardware.

That is why they have valuations in multiples better than IC startups becuase they make all the difference. Hard to see any IC firm at startup phase with $250M valuation. Yet, we see these web startups in the north of billions of dollars.

Jessica Lipsky
User Rank
Author
Re: Clarification
Jessica Lipsky   6/30/2014 9:42:59 AM
NO RATINGS
Honestly, I'm not sure. I imagine invalidating a current patent would require additional hearings, in which the prosecution would invoke this new ruling. 

Anand.Yaligar
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Dear Editor
Anand.Yaligar   6/30/2014 12:34:05 AM
NO RATINGS
if Pythogoas, Euclides etc had all patented their equations, we may not have modern science as we do today

@goafrit, good point. Similarly if C was patented then we shouldn't have seen so much of growth in software development.


Anand.Yaligar
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Hard/soft distinctions
Anand.Yaligar   6/30/2014 12:30:23 AM
NO RATINGS
You can have the best hardware but only the best software will make people connect and see the best in it

@goafrit, I totally agree with you. Software is as important as hardware for optimal systems performance.Some times the performance is limited by the software and not hardware.


Anand.Yaligar
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Clarification
Anand.Yaligar   6/30/2014 12:26:07 AM
NO RATINGS
Per comments, it's important to clarify that the Supreme Court did make a decision *on one case* and not all software patents; though the decision has implications on future patent requests.


@Jessica, thanks for the clarification. I am curious to know if we can apply the rule to past hearings ?


Anand.Yaligar
User Rank
Rookie
Re : Supreme Court Rules Against Software Patents
Anand.Yaligar   6/30/2014 12:22:43 AM
NO RATINGS
I think this is step in the right direction. I think decision to not grant patents for software which did not make technical advancements will encourage true innovation.

Etmax
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Clarification
Etmax   6/25/2014 6:54:24 AM
NO RATINGS
Seems to finally rule out Amazon's "One Click" which is long overdue, along with dozens of other SW implementations of existing HW. Take Apple's slide switch to turn off a phone, slide switches have been in use longer than I've been alive and yet they want to patent that LOL!

AZskibum
User Rank
CEO
Re: Software patent
AZskibum   6/24/2014 1:13:10 PM
NO RATINGS
It appears to me that this decision doesn't impact software patents in general -- just this particularly broad patent for a software concept.

Jessica Lipsky
User Rank
Author
Clarification
Jessica Lipsky   6/24/2014 1:06:45 PM
NO RATINGS
Per comments, it's important to clarify that the Supreme Court  did make a decision *on one case* and not all software patents; though the decision has implications on future patent requests.

 

Several commenters also have taken issue with abstract ideas being patentable, and I think there may have been confusion over the lede in this article. Software has not always been considered an abstract idea, but abstract ideas have long been considered patent ineligible: 

 

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html

II.   JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE FOUR CATEGORIES

Step 2: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception? See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3225, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1005-06 (2010) (stating "The Court's precedents provide three specific exceptions to § 101's broad patent-eligibility principles: 'laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.'") (quoting Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980)).

 

"A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right." Le Roy v. Tatham,55 U.S. (14 How.) 156, 175 (1852). 

--

Page 1 / 3   >   >>
Most Recent Comments
fragro
 
Sheetal.Pandey
 
prabhakar_deosthali
 
Violoncelles
 
prabhakar_deosthali
 
Violoncelles
 
prabhakar_deosthali
 
wilber_xbox
 
WW Thinker
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
"All the King's horses and all the KIng's men gave up on Humpty, so they handed the problem off to Engineering."
5 comments
Top Comments of the Week
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
Flash Poll
Radio
NEXT UPCOMING BROADCAST
How to Cope with a Burpy Comet
October 17, 2pm EDT Friday
EE Times Editorial Director Karen Field interviews Andrea Accomazzo, Flight Director for the Rosetta Spacecraft.