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.
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.
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.
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
" 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?