US Supreme Court rules against software patents
[Announcements] Posted Jun 19, 2014 15:10 UTC (Thu) by corbet
In April, LWN.net reported on the case of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, which addresses the issue of whether ideas implemented in software are patentable. The ruling is now in: a 9-0 decision against patentability. "We hold that the claims at issue are drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and that merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention," said Justice Thomas, delivering the opinion of the Court.
From the ruling [PDF]:
Here, the representative method claim does no more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step - creating and maintaining "shadow" accounts, obtaining data, adjusting account balances, and issuing automated instructions - is "[p]urely 'conventional.'" Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___. Considered "as an ordered combination," these computer components "ad[d] nothing . . . that is not already present when the steps are considered separately."
Id.,at ___. Viewed as a whole, these method claims simply recite the concept of intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer. They do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. An instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer is not "enough" to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Related Stories
The death of software patents in the United States has been greatly exaggerated. In a memo to Patent Examiners, the United States Patent And Trademark Office (USPTO) has released preliminary examination guidelines in view of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent opinion in Alice v. CLS Bank. The guidelines, which have been provided in a post on the patent blog Patently-O [PDF], specify that:
Alice Corp. neither creates a per se excluded category of subject matter, such as software or business methods, nor imposes any special requirements for eligibility of software or business methods.
The memo notes that "the basic inquiries to determine subject matter eligibility remain the same" and guide Examiners that they must "first determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does not fall within one of the categories, reject the claim as being directed to non-statutory subject matter". Then, "if the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) using Part I of [a] two-part analysis... and, if so, determine whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of an exception using Part 2 [of the two-part analysis]".
More details of the proposed analysis are provided in the guidelines linked to above.
(Score: 2) by skullz on Thursday June 19 2014, @04:04PM
Party Time!
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19 2014, @04:18PM
Break out the Patent Whiskey?
(Score: 2) by skullz on Thursday June 19 2014, @04:38PM
That is a patently good idea.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:12PM
Hurray, Patent Party Pending!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:15PM
but without software patents no one would ever write any software and software innovation will dry up and you will never have anymore software ever again. How would you like to live in a world without software?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:33PM
You sir, should be awarded with a chat with RMS!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Blackmoore on Thursday June 19 2014, @04:11PM
This ought to be enough to ruin software patent trolls.
If you have time to read the brief it is strangely intelligible. as if they knew that this was going to be read by thousands of non-legal experts.
this ought to be the death knell for stupid software patents (like the f1 key, or rounded corners, or slide to unlock) but it won't be till later when a lawyer can use this as part of a defense (or a judge in the case of Apple vs Samsung) when we will be able to see this ruling in effect.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Thursday June 19 2014, @04:59PM
this is clearly not enough.
there is still:
"over the internet"
"on a smartphone"
"on a tablet"
"using a wireless connection to the internet"
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:20PM
yeah, but even the lowest court can stare down the Troll and explain that none of these are physical devices, and none of them will function without being software running on a general purpose computer.
the real challenge will be a device - specifically made to do one task - vs a general purpose system running software that does the same task.
Since the device would in some way use existing computer components; will the patent office see it as a computer; or as a new class of electronic device? Would pre-existing software trump the patent for the device that was designed to do that task? Would the cost of such a device compete with a software only solution?
Case in point would be network and wi-fi analyzing sensors and software. You have to have the right sensors for the software to map the wi-fi signal strength. That sensor is certainly patentable - if they rework it to be a part of a stand alone device; does that trump the software?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday June 19 2014, @09:07PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19 2014, @04:30PM
FU, Amazon, FU, Intellectual Ventures.
Further reading is scarce at the moment; EFF has nothing. The Software Freedom Law Center has nothing.
Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] has this to say:
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday June 19 2014, @04:38PM
yes, there is one. You see, the current decision affects only "trivial but on a computer" patents. Not yet the "...but on internet" side of trolling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Blackmoore on Thursday June 19 2014, @04:45PM
so - yeah - it will still take another case to run up to the US supreme court to invalidate "on the internet" patents, but with this judgement in hand even the lower courts will be forced to decide against the patent.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday June 19 2014, @07:36PM
You've said it a few times, but it bears repeating.
Case precedence was set here, by nothing less than the highest court possible. It's going to have a trickle down effect, but will take time in further cases in the lower courts.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:53PM
I'm pretty sure "...but on the internet" is a subset of "but on a computer". Can't have an internet without computers. But you can have computers without the internet.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by forkazoo on Thursday June 19 2014, @07:29PM
Nah, there were several distinct generations of idiotic troll patents. "Making a purchase using a computer" style patents started in the 80's-90's. "Making a purchase over a computer network" patents started getting rolling in the 90's once some people started realising that just using a computer wasn't actually that impressive sounding any more "Making a purchase over a wireless network" is a whole new 21st century type of patent filled with more intractable legalese than the "using a computer patents" tended to be. By the time wireless patents became the popular thing, lawyers knew they needed to bring a new level of razzle dazzle to the show, so nobody knows what those things actually patent. I swear, some of those patent arithmetic and breathing. On the bright side, if a bunch of the overly broad stuff is allowed to stand, in 30 years, there will be an interesting IP free for all when it becomes impossible to patent digital video regadless of the algorithm because the earlier patents were so stupidly broad.
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Friday June 20 2014, @02:28PM
I like the idea. But I fear it doesn't work like that. Patents Offices just grant what's put in front of them; I doubt they really care about the overall self-consistency of the system.
Let's say your 'video processing on any computer' patent expires in 2025. I could easily imagine that my 'video processing on a quantum computer' patent will still be granted in 2026.
"Just let the courts sort it out", say the software patent examiners - much to the delight of their friends in other parts of the legal system, and the despair of small businesses.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday June 21 2014, @11:32PM
Inconsistency is actively encouraged. The superset of an existing patent may be a novel idea. However, that leaves you with a patent in which the core idea must be licensed from one (or more) other parties. A patent search may find some examples of this but there is no guarantee that you're completely in the clear. And then there are the cases where two or more parties have pretty much the same patent - sometimes granted on the same day.
When patents were rare and in different fields, this didn't happen. Now that they are numerous, people are often stepping on each others' toes. If a patent office was financially liable when these cases occurred then they'd be much less willing to grant patents. However, they're not. So, you're left to duke it out in court with other patent holders.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 20 2014, @02:23AM
Really? Those guys with "the Internet of things" didn't get this memo, would you be so kind to fwd it to them?
Don't take me wrong, I do understand that networking will require a computer in some sense. But I just don't think a judge of Joe Sixpack are going to realize soon that a "SmartTV" is not actually a TV but a computer specialized to display multimedia. This is also what the cars will become in the near future: a computer specialized in delivering ads and track the users behaviour, except they will have the secondary and minor function of moving people around. Guess what? They'll still be called cars, not computers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by meisterister on Thursday June 19 2014, @08:35PM
Say hello to Windows 9: Cloud Edition.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday June 20 2014, @02:11AM
So where is the internet that is NOT "on a computer"?
(Remembering that smartphones and the like are just specialized all-in-one computers)
Okay, maybe while the electrons are traversing a phone line...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 20 2014, @02:27AM
On your SmartTV - JoeSixpack thinks it's a TV, not a computer. Guess what? A judge will think the same.
Google self-driving cars - yes, I know: they may actually have multiple computers. Guess what? They'll still be called/considered "Smart Cars" (and a judge will do the same).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday June 20 2014, @02:37AM
That's when you dismantle the TV or car unit and hook its brain up to a monitor, and demonstrate that it IS a computer.
I guess what we need to reinforce is that "smart" is just a catchall for "computerized".
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 20 2014, @04:06AM
Some countries already [wikipedia.org] or will [eff.org] ban that.
"Did you really think the TV/car is yours to do what you please with it? What times you think you live on, 1960-ies, you hippie/woman liberation activist? Information wants what we tell it to want, or doesn't exist at all"
- Signed-
your master: the Military, Industrial, Entertainment and Congress-critters complex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday June 20 2014, @05:14AM
"It's not a TV! It's an aberrant computer monitor!!"
And if that doesn't work, try:
"My car is possessed!"
(At last, that explains My Mother the Car!!)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 20 2014, @05:34AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday June 20 2014, @07:04AM
I grok all this... Oh, I see the confusion. I didn't mean generally; I meant disassemble the SmartWhatever *for the court* as part of the case against all this SmartCrap and On-The-Internet being a special case, at such time as the whole mess gets dragged into said court.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mattie_p on Thursday June 19 2014, @07:16PM
Found this link [swpat.org] by clicking around, looks like it has some good discussion and links to other sources.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday June 21 2014, @11:07PM
Why would anyone file a patent which doesn't improve the functioning of a computer or a technological process? Even if a patent specifically makes a computer slower, it would be filed because it improves functionality in a some obscure case.
1702845791×2
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Thursday June 19 2014, @04:35PM
The effect on Apple will be pretty large, but it's the likely end of Microsoft's extortion campaign that I'm looking forward to. That company sucking money from people using open-source software is offensive.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mendax on Thursday June 19 2014, @06:07PM
The effect goes far beyond Apple and Microsoft. It will have some effect on the creation of new businesses using venture capital. One of the things that the VC's are intently interested in are in intellectual property. Since it has now gotten much more difficult to get a software patent, one potentially valuable avenue of commercial value has been eliminated. Of course, for those who actually produce something of value such as software, the source code and executables are protected under copyright law. And, of course, there is the simple value that all profitable businesses have always produced--goodwill. But the playing field has definitely changed.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday June 21 2014, @11:42PM
It also means some features can be restored in open source software. For example, Postgres can restore the efficient caching algorithm from 8.0.0 which infringed on IBM's Adaptive Replacement Cache, US Patent 6,996,676. I also presume that some features can be restored in GIMP, such as layer sets.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by mendax on Sunday June 22 2014, @07:59AM
I think the most important effect this ruling will have in the IT world is that it will make it much harder for someone to claim that Linux or BSD implementation of your choice is infringing upon their patents.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:45PM
Its going to be a few days at least for the lawyers to parse through and translate it from legalese to something the rest of us can understand. Given that it was unanimous by a court known for its conservative and pro-business leanings I would be hesitant to think this will really have an effect on the business interests of large corporations.
I'm not going to hold my breath but I'm hopeful that this really is as good as it sounds.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by mendax on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:58PM
Agreed, although the opinion does appear to make clear that this ruling could apply to business methods:
To me, that is a classic example of a business method. Of course, this means that there will be years of more litigation before business methods are ruled unpatentable but the writing is on the wall for them.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Blackmoore on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:58PM
if you have a moment read the PDF from the court. It is surprisingly sparse in the use of legaleeze. it goes back to the original case about patenting software and clearly states (over and over) that ideas are not patentable.
It explicitly states that the software in this case does not warrant a patent or copyright; as it is only an idea running as software. (and for those following the scorecard this software was "running on the internet") What it does not appear to do is strike down all software copyright - rather it will now be up to the court to decide if the software in question was patented "in error"
So if you know a lawyer who's also a friend of the EFF - you might want to exercise a case of reverse-copyright-troll. and start using this case (and a briefcase full of prior art) to start killing off the patent trolls.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday June 19 2014, @07:38PM
Just the thought of that gives me goosebumps.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday June 20 2014, @12:53AM
Your post is giving me trouble because of the way it conflates copyright and patent. This was a case about patents, not copyrights. Copyright laws are unaffected. (And, actually, the only thing wrong with copyrights is that the term needs to be cut down to about 10 years with one renewal.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Informative) by evilviper on Thursday June 19 2014, @06:04PM
The patents in question are about extremely vague ideas implemented in software, with no particular additions or optimizations. It's something like "Escrow... on a computer".
Advanced software patents like those on MPEG-4 are certainly not undermined by this ruling. And furthermore, the ruling sounds like any kind of performance optimization, at all, will make it again qualify as patent-worthy.
It's an improvement over the current state of affairs, but not a large one, and the summary vastly oversells this ruling. Software patents are alive and well.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19 2014, @07:20PM
Thank you for being the one person with common sense. Do people really think the software patent business could be killed just like that? Not a chance in hell.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19 2014, @08:25PM
Doubt anyone here is so naive as to belief that Society could be so fortunate as to have all software patent nonsense invalidated by court judgement. Honesty, Justice, sane behavior, etc coming from any of the branches of government? Please, save the fairy tales for the children and fools, the adults no longer believe them.
(Score: 2) by ancientt on Friday June 20 2014, @01:06AM
Agreed.
The hopeful cynic in me thinks this is how it starts. You don't change society in one ruling, you cut off one small part of the structure and the structure shifts, then you cut off another small part and the structure shifts a little more. After enough small shifts, the structure falls down, but by the time that happens everybody has voluntarily abandoned the failed structure.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Blackmoore on Thursday June 19 2014, @06:50PM
More on this at
http://boingboing.net/2014/06/19/supreme-court-invalidates-soft.html [boingboing.net]
the following was recommended by boing boing; but doesnt seem to have anything on the decision yet
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/ [softwarefreedom.org]