SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Roy Schestowitz at TechRights reports
Further reinforcing the current trend, software patents' demise in the United States has just been ascertained again.
[...] The latest decision[PDF] [...] from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is eye-catching, but either it hasn't caught the eye of legal firms or they're just trying to ignore it, so we'll be covering it more than we usually cover such decisions.
[...] The ruling is very important because it serves to demonstrate a loss for patent trolls and for software patents (or patent trolls that use software patents, which is typical). The decision criticises patent trolling as well.
[...] So far, based on our research, only one press article has been published about this decision. It's titled "Here's Why Software Patents Are in Peril After the Intellectual Ventures Ruling".
The end may be in sight for software patents--which have long been highly controversial in the tech industry--in the wake of a remarkable appeals court ruling that described such patents as a "deadweight loss on the nation's economy" and a threat to the First Amendment's free speech protections.
The ruling, issued on Friday [September 30] by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, found that three patents asserted against anti-virus companies Symantec [...] and Trend Micro were invalid because they did not describe a patentable invention. The patents were owned by Intellectual Ventures, which has a notorious reputation in the tech world as a so-called "patent troll", a phrase that describes firms that buy up old patents and wage lawsuits in order to demand payments from productive companies.
Software Patents as a Threat to Free Speech
Friday's ruling is also significant because Judge [Haldane Robert] Mayer eschews the insider baseball language that typically dominates patent law, and addresses patents in the broader context of technology and government monopolies.
Pointing out that intellectual property monopolies can limit free speech, Mayer notes that copyright law has built-in First Amendment protections such as "fair use" and that patent law must include similar safeguards. He suggests that the safeguard comes in the form of a part of the Patent Act, known as "Section 101", which says some things--including abstract ideas--simply can't be patented in the first place.
(Score: 1) by terryk30 on Wednesday October 05 2016, @07:47AM
To further your contrasting of hardware invention as often requiring experimentation, the world of hardware throws up unexpected constraints from quirky materials and snags in working and tooling, unlike the world of software where the mere specification or outline of the problem essentially implies its own solution (to those skilled in the art) because the medium of realization is idealized general-purpose computing machinery.
IIUC linking the latter to math and Turing machines has been one basis for banning software patents as a class (rather than just banning them based on their generally lower degree of nonobviousness), but in persuading non-CS types of this (or ultimately the public) I've wondered if there also hasn't been enough explicit contrasting with the former - that is, with the constraints of the world of hardware. I.e.: the lack of physical constraints make software inventions intrinsically "less nonobvious" than physical inventions.