By Jason Rantanen
Last week, Director of the USPTO David Kappos delivered a keynote address to the Center for American Progress that focused on software patents and the smartphone "patent wars." The speech is noteworthy for the Director's strong defense of software patents. The entire speech is worth reading – here are a few excerpts to induce you to read the full speech:
Software patents, like all patents, are a form of innovation currency. They are also ecosystem enablers, and job creators. The innovation protected by software patents is highly integrated with hardware. All of it must remain eligible for protection. The current software patent “war” is hardly the first patent war—and unlikely to be the last in our nation’s patent history. Whenever breakthrough technologies come onto the scene, market players find themselves joined in the marketplace by new entrants. The first instinct of the breakthrough innovators is to bring patents into play. This is not only understandable, it is appropriate. Those who invest in breakthrough innovation have a right to expect others to respect their resultant IP. However, in the end, as history has shown time and time again, the players ultimately end up agreeing to pro-consumer solutions via licenses, cross-licenses or joint development agreements allowing core technologies to be shared.
***
So does that mean we’re done? End of speech? Should we just accept the problems, given the importance of the innovation and the illogic of discriminating against great technology that happens to be implemented in software? Of course not. The right point of inquiry is quality. By getting that right, we grant patents only for great algorithmic ideas worthy of protection, and not for everything else. This administration and its innovation agency understand that low-quality patents do no good for anyone. Low quality patents lead to disputes, uncertainty, and lost opportunity. Quality is central to our mission. All of this especially for software.
So we’ve been working on the underlying drivers for software patent quality from the beginning. Knowing that you get what you measure, starting in the summer of 2009 we assembled a taskforce to devise a comprehensive new set of quality metrics. That work culminated in 2010, when we rolled out the most complete, broad, objective patent quality measurement system on the planet – seven metrics, which we report eagerly to the public. The Lexus of quality metrics. And what do those metrics show? Patent quality isn’t broken at all. In fact, our decisions on both allowances and rejections correctly comply with all laws and regulations over 96 percent of the time.
***
You know, the history of software patents is not a perfect one, although things are improving. Some of the most troublesome patents have expired; others can be challenged with new post-grant proceedings; and newer patents are quantifiably clearer, and aligned with current legal standards. But it’s important to note that, during the so-called smartphone patent wars, innovation continues at breakneck pace. A system like ours, in which innovation is happening faster than consumers can keep up, cannot fairly be characterized as “broken”. Nor can it be said that the U.S. is just a receiver of all this innovation. Most of the innovation is taking place right here. Broken? What?
The fact is, the explosion of innovation—and follow-on litigation—that we see across consumer electronics hardware and software is a direct reflection of how our patent system wires us for innovation. It's both natural and reasonable that in a fast-growing, competitive market, innovators would seek to protect their breakthroughs using our patent system.
The full version of Director Kappos's speech is available here: http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2012/kappos_CAP.jsp
From Mr. Kappos’s prepared remarks: “…the courts have consistently upheld the patentability of software as a general proposition.”
I’ll take his opinion of the law over that of this site’s anonymous wankers any day. You know who you are.
“because otherwise nobody would invest the incredible sums of money requred to “invent” ”
Sorry MM, the “but for” canard was retired a long time ago. That simply is not a requirement for obtaining a patent in this reality.
It only remains to say amen to that. It is hoped that this sectio of the speech, together with its context as explained by Dave Kappos, will in future be rotinely cited in patent-eligibility cases
1. A computer-controlled scalpel, wherein said scalpel is controlled by a computer running a very special algorithm, wherein said very special algorithm minimizes unwanted damage to the patient.
So awesome! And so important to hand out patents on every computer-controlled scalpel comprising that algorithms because otherwise nobody would invest the incredible sums of money requred to “invent” those super special algorithms and we’d all be using sharp rocks to perform surgery on ourselves.
Here’s my question for Kappos: if these “algorithms” are so awesome and worthy of patent protection, then he should gladly submit to his next surgery being performed with a scalpel controlled by a computer with that algorithm, regardless of any other aspect of the software or machinery. I mean, an ordinary programmer could write the software employing the software without undue experimentation so … let’s just let an ordinary programmer do that. Shouldn’t take more than a few hours to write the program since the algorithm is so very special. Will Kappos submit to the surgery using a scalpel and the software employing the algorithm written by any ordinary programmer? Or would Kappos prefer that his surgery be performed by a particular embodiment that, um, actually works?
MM” “Please identify the “technical” problem and “technical” solution in the claim below:”
Hello MM:
The technical problem is determining if the claims are “integrated” and the solution is “Integration Analysis”.
Using the Courts line of 101 cases as the lens thru which to define exactly what “integration” is, and most importantly when claims are “integrated” it is apparent that a process claim has a clear presumption of “Integration” and the presumption remains valid, and requires no further analysis under 101 unless the claims as a whole recite;
1. A bare Court created Judicial Exception, (derived implicitly from the Congressional Statute of 101) or
2. The first element of the claim is a bare Court created Judicial Exception, (derived implicitly from the Congressional Statute of 101) followed by additional steps that apply the Judicial Exception. In the case of the latter, extra-solution analysis, (pre or post ) occurs to determine if the claims are integrated. What follows is a brief synopsis of how the Court has applied “Integration Analysis” in each of the 101 cases.
Benson = (Non Integrated)
Reason/Analysis: Begins with a bare Court Created Judicial Exception of an algorithm followed by additional steps that apply the the Judicial Exception. Extra solution ( pre or post ) analysis required.
Flook = (Non Integrated)
Reason/Analysis: Begins with a Bare Court Created Judicial Exception of math followed by additional steps that apply the the Judicial Exception. Extra solution ( pre or post ) analysis required.
Diehr = (Integrated)
Reason/Analysis: Claims as a whole are not a bare Court created judicial exception, nor does the first element of the claims begin with a bare Court created judicial exception followed by additional steps that apply it. The claims maintains their presumption of “Integration” and are therefore integrated and statutory subject matter.
Bilski = (Non Integrated)
Reason/Analysis: Claims as a whole are a Bare Court Created Judicial Exception of a math formula. No extra solution (pre or post ) analysis required.
Prometheus = (Non Integrated)
Reason/Analysis: Claims begins with a Bare Court Created Judicial Exception of a Law of Nature followed by additional steps that apply the the Judicial Exception. Extra solution ( pre or post ) analysis required.
Now, applied to the 7963254 patent (?)
The claims are not a LoN/Physical Phenomenon, Abstract concept ( performed entirely within the mind) .
Nor does the first element begin with any of these judicial exceptions and add steps for applying it.
So It appears the claims are integrated and 101 statutory subject matter.
Of course this is without reading the claims in light of the specification and in view of a person having ordinary skill in the art, which is also required. But barring any problems from the spec, the claims pass 101.
Let me know if you have any other questions. I am glad to help!
Authority Relied On:
Diehr and Flook, the cases most directly on point, both addressed processes using mathematical formulas that, like laws of nature, are not themselves patentable. In Diehr, the overall process was patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole. 450 U. S., at 187. These additional steps transformed the process into an inventive application of the formula. But in Flook, the additional steps of the process did not limit the claim to a particular application..” ) [Cite as: 566 U. S. ____ (2012) 3 Syllabus]
Owned, yes.
The other….. That is conjecture.
But smearing Jefferson is a valid for of argument?
Sent from iPhone
“But clearly, what I had in mind was the concept of Jefferson, not Ron Paul.”
Umm let’s see. Jefferson owned and raped slaves. Yeah thats some role model. Anyone else you want to apologize for?
Ron Paul opposed civil rights legislation?
I didn't know that.
Did he explain, why?
But clearly, what I had in mind was the concept of Jefferson, not Ron Paul. Government does have a role, when necessary.
As part of his Libertarianism. beliefs Ron Paul opposed civil right legislation .
That means Libertarians would have the freedom to tell “the blacks” as “you people” call them, they can’t eat, sleep, swim, at their businesses, or buy their house, or ride on their buses etc.
Get the picture?
Yup from libertarianism to conservatism it’s one big parade. Just some participants have pointy hats made of white sheets and the others made out of shiny tin foil.
Ron Paul, f
Freedom to discriminate?
Conservatism == Racism?
Smears and Bigotry on parade.
IANAE, you seem to agree that conservatism, to the extent it is religious, is not about race. Homophobia is a different matter, of course.
I hope you recognize that the original abolitionist movement was heavily based in religion and its tenets that all men are created equal in the eyes of the Lord. Also, the whole effort in Roman times to bring rights to the slaves was based on this same religious tenet.
Racism is endemic in Europe, and in America. Politically, US long tolerated slavery based in part on racism. Discrimination, however, was not only against former slaves, but against the Irish, the Italians, Chinese, and, of course, Catholics.
What changed? WWII. It is clear that Eisenhower had had enough when he found the camps. He rubbed the collective German nose in what they had done. He was behind Truman's desegregating the military. He was the one who began affirmative action in his presidential administration. It was he who appointed Earl Warren, who gave us Brown v. Board.
I don't think the Republican Party has ever, in its history, been associated with racism, with slavery, with Jim Crow or the like. Republicans have always been in favor of equal rights. It took the Democrat Party a long time to get on board.
What I see today is, however, a consistent effort of some to rewrite history so that the Democratic Party's long association with institutional racism is denied.
Hello Paul:
Both the algorithm that guides the clamp and biological interpretation that gives the test life and meaning are worthy of patent protection and pass at least 101 if they are “integrated” in the process as a whole.
An integrated algorithm and/or concept transforms a process into an inventive application of the concept or algorithm. This is what Diehr taught us and what Prometheus upheld.
“There is another form of conservatism that essentially asks for a smaller, less intrusive government across the board: Libertarianism.”
Libertarianism, yeah, like the freedom to discriminate ( no civil rights act, no voter rights act) and own slaves, ( pro civil war).
Where as conservatism is racism, libertarianism goes beyond that even. It’s anarchy, it just nuts.
Most conservatives are of the religious type, including Catholics, a lot of whom are not white.
You don’t have to be white to be racist. Or homophobic. Or against any of the other forms of “personal liberty” that basically involve being or acting differently from religious conservatives. Or, more to the point, differently from how religious conservatives say people should be or act.
Pretty much the central tenet of any Western religion is conformity. A religious conservative who wants “freedom” really wants the freedom to practice his own religion, and preferably for everybody else to do the same.
IANAE, that might be considered to be a bigoted smear. Most conservatives are of the religious type, including Catholics, a lot of whom are not white.
Sent from iPhone
I for one do not understand how a conservative can say with a straight face that he is for freedom but in the next bread be against all forms of personal liberty.
Being a conservative means that everybody is free to agree with you. Which, actually, is not that different from “any color you want, as long as it’s not black”.
Forward, I think a lot of people conflate racism with religious conservationism. They are not necessarily the same thing.
There is another form of conservatism that essentially asks for a smaller, less intrusive government across the board: Libertarianism. The religious right shares very little with libertarians. But the disagreements between the two have nothing to do with race, but more with abortion, drug use, and other forms of personal liberty. I for one do not understand how a conservative can say with a straight face that he is for freedom but in the next bread be against all forms of personal liberty.
“Regarding modern “conservatism,” I think it far more associated with religious conservatism that anything else.”
And this is why the Tea Party wants to see Obama’s papers. Just like a so called freed slave had to carry? Yeah right. Give em that old time religion.
Open-source works as a business model.
link to royal.pingdom.com
Regardless of whether you are right on liberal v. conservative, that is not how history is taught. The Democratic Party's prior association with racism is erased. The clear implication is that it was the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln for pity's sake, that was responsible for slavery, Jim Crow and all of that.
Regarding modern "conservatism," I think it far more associated with religious conservatism that anything else. This is why I for one have a problem with it.
Personal responsiblity, fiscal restraint, and self control are racist? Exactly what inherent defects do you believe non-whites possess?
Yeah, keep trying there LOL!
Just for the record, the party has nothing to do with racism.
It’s the ideology. Modern “conservatism” is synonymous with racism.
Liberals are the true heroes of the civil rights, voting rights, and equality in this country.
Conservative Democrats left the party under Johnson because liberals pushed through civil rights.
In fact the Republican party built it’s success and legacy, Nixon. Reagan, Bush on the Southern Strategy, which was to appeal to conservative AKA racist Democrats in the South and convince them to vote Republican. And it has worked clean up until 2008 when Obama and the liberals took back the moral compas of the country.
Przemysła Lib, feel free to support your “theory” with a single solitary advanced modern nation that has adopted your dogma.
I suspect I will receive your answer when I get the answers from Beaker et al (that is, never).
Przemysła Lib, the Prometheus Court told you 9-0, a concept integrated into a process transforms the process into an inventive application of the concept, why then can’t technology, such as software, integrated into a process transform the process into an inventive application of the software?
No one on this board has ever answered this question and since you appear to be a newcomer, with a point of view, I thought you might be brave enough to give it a try!
If not joine the club.
This may be true. But the PTAB and the Examining Corps apply the the MoT like it is the Gospel. I think we may see a case go all the way back to the Supremes one day asking if they really, really, really meant what they said.
They ate themselves from within with the exact same tools that we’re using.
I blame Yelp.
Renee, saying something like that is what is the problem. I once worked for a very large company that defined its corporate mission in vague terminology that no one quite knew the meaning of. If one asked anyone in the company what its business was, or what was its mission statement, most could not give a coherent answer.
The use of language such as that used by Kappos is itself a problem, a big problem.
“American Progressivism: A Reader” is eye opening on Wilson. It’s a collection of his writings. That guy was seriously twisted.
The Roman empire is exactly what I’m talking about. They did EXACTLY what we’re doing with immigration, debt, entitlement programs, etc. They ate themselves from within with the exact same tools that we’re using.
Glad I could help.
You didn’t help.
The “technical problem” was what? And the novel, non-obvious technical solution was …?
Leo, I know from personal experience that the Catholic view of history is distorted. To them, Rome fell due to “corruption.” To others, Gibbon for example, the Catholic Church and its extreme pacifism, itself was the problem.
I know also that at least some Americans in public schools are being given a version of the truth that covers up the Democratic Party’s role in certain “ugly” events. Skipping Polk, who achieved much for America, is a case in point. Suggesting the South always was Republican, claiming that Lincoln was a Democrat is another. Attributing the civil rights actions of Eisenhower and Nixon to Democrats. (Did you know that Republican Earl Warren, an Eisenhower appointee, is the sole reason for the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education?) There is a pattern of deception and propaganda not only by schools, but by public media.
That the Democrat Party today stands for civil rights is to be applauded, but it was not always the case. Presidents like Wilson were as racist as President Jefferson Davis, both Democrats.
In the words of Orwell, “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, control the future.”
There’s an App for that…
Or do you mean some other Robert Bird?
Technical problem: Bird identification.
If you knew any older southerners, especially the good ole boys that may have a racist streak, you wouldn’t be so smug. Racism is still alive and well in the democrat party. I think LBJ put the Democrat Party position on this issue best, “I’ll have these [people] voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” He was right. They even continually reelected Robert Byrd, a card carrying clansman, until he died in office. Now that I’ve wasted my time on someone who doesn’t care what actually happened (see the original point of this discussion), I’m getting back to work.
example, most people don’t know that the KKK is part of the Democratic Party ala Robert Bird
You do know that Senator Bird (sic) is dead, right? Or do you mean some other Robert Bird?
But I’m curious, and willing to be educated: how many KKK members do you think are voting Democratic these days?
“storing audio feature relevance data, audio family index data and audio species identification data temporally correlated to said bird song in a memory device;”
Glad I could help.
While I agree with all of that (for example, most people don’t know that the KKK is part of the Democratic Party ala Robert Bird), the bigger point for me is the what and why or policy and effect instead of the who. For example, in Weimar Germany, they printed money to avoid a depression, ended up in hyper inflation, and collapsed. Yet, people today thinking digitizing money (printing on steroids) is a GREAT idea; it’s free liquidity. No, it’s not free, and if we knew history, we wouldn’t be repeating these mistakes. But whether it’s Germany, Zimbabwe, or Japan, the policy and effect is much more important than the who and when.
the technical problem
Please identify the “technical” problem and “technical” solution in the claim below:
7963254
1. A method for learning to identify birds by their song comprising:
storing a bird’s song in memory device;
storing audio feature relevance data, audio family index data and audio species identification data temporally correlated to said bird song in a memory device;
selecting the stored bird song for replay; and
replaying the selected bird song on an audio device while displaying the correlated data and the degree of relevance of the data to the identification of the bird family on a display device.
Is it necessary to possess ordinary skill in the art of either identifying bird calls or computer programming to write or understand this claim? If you believe the answer is yes, please explain what special skill was required to conceive of this invention, which was plainly reduced to practice immediately upon describing it.
Why does the USPTO require practitioners to have a “technical” background when this type of subject matter is being pursued (and granted) at increasing rates each year?
Was the Examiner who granted this patent smoking a secret brand of governement crank when he sent the Notice of Allowance?
Really?
I went to her school and confirmed the truth. In fact, I saw how they were teaching American history. For example, they totally skipped Polk, and said Lincoln was a Democrat.
On a recent election-night analysis (2008), one of the CNN folks commented on the election of a Democrat to the governorship of some Southern state that this was the first time since the Civil War that a Democrat had won election in this deep-South state. Now this was supposedly an educated man saying this.
the technical problem
What “technical problem” is solved by describing an idea for monetizing information “X” that recites steps for obtaining information “X”, “determining” something about information “X” and targetting an individual or group of individuals based on the determination?
This is a rhetorical question.
I still remember the day that my daughter came home school and announced that JFK was the best president ever and Nixon the worst. “After all,” she said, “Nixon got us into the Vietnam war and JFK got us out.”
To be fair, Ned, there are a couple of possible explanations for this.
bad joke, perhaps it's not so much that they don't teach history anymore, but that they teach propaganda. I say this because I only went to Catholic schools and there received a version of reality that was quite inconsistent with real history. After I got out of college, I had to re-study history in order to learn the truth. I don't think most Americans will do this because I don't believe most of them realize that they been lied to their entire lives.
One can only imagine what it's like to grow up and be educated in even more totalitarian states like communist Russia, Nazi Germany in any religious theocracy that seem to be so common today. But United States is not immune to the phenomena. We teacher version of history that is flawed.
I still remember the day that my daughter came home school and announced that JFK was the best president ever and Nixon the worst. "After all," she said, "Nixon got us into the Vietnam war and JFK got us out."
Further, I don't know how many times I have seen it stated publicly by people who really believe it is true that it was Johnson who sent the troops south to open the schools after Brown v. Board of Education. That was not Johnson, that was Eisenhower.
Desegregation? It was Eisenhower and Nixon that began affirmative action during their administration. It was Nixon who gave it teeth with timetables and quotas. Read Nixon speech accepting his nomination to the presidency in 1968. A major point in the speech was that the welfare state would lead to more segregation and not less. He reemphasized that it was the Republican platform and his platform to support desegregation, and he did so with a vengeance when he was president.
Not ofter observed is what has happened with the welfare state. The blacks in the poor stay mainly in the ghetto supported there by the welfare state in a not dissimilar fashion to Indian reservations. One has to ask this question – did in the advocates of the welfare state know that this would happen given the prior examples of Indian reservations? I think it is quite self-evident that they did know, and further that they intended the result. After all, the welfare state was a program advocated by a Southerner.
It’s because we don’t teach history anymore. The under 30 crowd is COMPLETELY ignorant of history. They have no idea that Russia was a collectivist society, or that Nazi Germany was, or that Italy was. They have no idea of the atrocities committed “for the greater good.” And when confronted with reality…. “Well, that could never happen here; we’re the United States.” :homer:
Most of these same people think that China is today a collectivist society. WRONG! They saw the power capitalism and are trying to harness it under a totalitarian government. Big difference.
It seems rather, to be about your lack of knowledge about law.
I suggest you seek first to understand IP law (copyrights and what they cover, patents and what they cover) before you embark on your crusade. Otherwise, you will only continue to embarrass yourself with your postings.
“Nor expect any respect for such law.”
I expect you to obey the law no matter how your lemming feelings get in the way.
I see Boris from Bullwinkle…
Process is its own distinct patent eligible category. It is not tied to a machine, manufacture or composition.
See Bilksi that held 9-0 that MOT is not a requirement for a process to be patent eligible (one of the few things in that case that all nine justices agreed to).
“ It’s far more likely that the intent was to benefit black people and women.”
Yet another inane and vacuous comment.
Is there a reason you feel compelled to deviate from a discussion on patent law with such nonsense?
I concur – they are blinded by their ideal end-state. That is why I ask for a single solitary example of a modern advanced society that has reached that state – and that is why they have no answer to my question.
Mind you, the idealism – in and of itself – would be a wonderful state to be in. But such simply is not reality.
That they continue to post the same “crrp” despite this call to base their position in reality only exposes their being out of touch with reality and harms the cause they seek to advance. Delusional aspirations must be set aside as real work needs to be done.
> They give proof that there is problem.
It may perhaps be an indication that there might be an issue. That, however, is nowhere close to being a proof.
> If those who innovate rise voices against Patents. Then proponents of patents have to actually PROVE their usefulness.
> As this speaker of USPTO fails to do…
Seriously? Have you considered that others make the law, that some have to follow that law and are commissioned to act on that law and then has absolutely noting to prove?
> I wonder what percent of today’s software/computer-implemented patent application drafters have been “writing software for several decades”.
At the firm I am working we all have a long experience, academic as well as industrial, in the arts where we work. The clients I have would have seen through us immediately if we were not experienced enough to understand the technical problem as well as the solution they present.
It used to be that a client selected a patent law firm once and stuck with this firm; these days they look around to see who can serve them best and if I cannot convince them they will leave. Perhaps this is an European phenomenon; after all times are demanding and clients know they can demand service.
What, do you draft applications in arts you are not experienced in??
> That is correct. Instead of hard math I can use my CREATIVITY.
If you are truly creative it will, by definition, be novel and thus not patented.
If on the other hand there is a patent you are, again by definition, not original and you have no claims on being creative either.
Ned,
It is you that do not get it. The dicta on Benson was RIGHTFULLY ignored and canined in cases after Benson. You rail at this, but that is the law that you continue to close your eyes to – it is a driver for your misinformed animus towards Judge Rich who KNEW that the dicta in Benson was crrp and could be ignored.
It’s like your you unholy and totally unreasonable (which you finally relinquished) as to what the holding in the Bilski case was. Do you remember when that light bulb went off?
Is “nothing” a machine, process, manufactured or composition?
Are you saying a process should be patentable independent of a machine, manufactured or composition?
Ned — you refuse to get that Benson is a horrible decision that is effectively dead at the USPTO and the Federal Circuit.
Its not going to get any play at SCOTUS because Douglas’s analysis was a bunch of hand waving by a guy that didn’t like patents to begin with. Basing any analysis on Benson isn’t going to get you anywhere.
Don’t confuse logic with math. They are not one and the same.
Software is computer logic — not computer math.
anon, the do-gooders never seem to get it. They imagine a utopia where all share, and goods and services, like money, seems to grow on trees. Society in such a world is one big welfare state. Who actually works and produces is unstated. Helots?
In such a world, inventions magically appear and are shared with all. How this happens is not really explained.
Anon, if we stop arguing about utopias, we note that in real societies without patent law, even with the rule of law, inventions are slow in coming. They occur, but not all that often. And if they do occur, they spread slowly because the first instinct of the possessor of new technology is to keep it secret.
Patents were created in Venice to overcome this tendency to keep new technology secret. Once patents spread to Germany and England, technological progress took off.
The do-gooders never seem to get this.
Are you intentionally trying to talk like a cold war soviet, or is it just a happy byproduct of communism? Because if you’re willing to promise me a cool Russian accent, I might be willing to agree with you.
You don’t read the news much, do you?
Define “software.”
Define “abstract.”
Define “a particular machine.”
Define “quality.”
Define “patent ecoshpere.”
Define “fashionable nincompoop.”
NOT applaied.
Its MATH.
As in school math. As in univ math. As in (pick any mathematical periodic name) math.
As in PURE math.
As in math publicized.
The ONLY people out there drafting software patents are EE’s and CS guys, at least at the big guys and boutiques.
Unless you are using the term “software patent” in a very narrow fashion, you are certainly wrong and I know many people who are not “EEs or CS guys” that will attest to the fact that you are wrong (including myself) based on their own experience. Now that I’ve beaten your own strawman into mulch, let’s return to my original proposition:
I’ll wager that at any of the larger firms out there doing patent prosecution that every prosecutor employed more than two years has drafted an application that includes a “computer-implemented” invention.
Nothing controversial about this.
EU do not have Software Patents.
Poor EU. Their economy will surely bankrupt 😛
“Nothing” should be patentable? Is “nothing” a machine, process, manufactured or composition?
I disagree that “nothing” should be patentable.
anon, you steadfastly refuse to “get it.” Benson declared that using a GP digital computer is not enough. Alappat (in its hypothetical regarding a software equivalent) declared that the use of software in a particular machine or system was, however, patent eligible. This was, after all, the holding in Diehr as well.
All one has to do is compare Benson with Diehr and Alappat.
Any PROOF that it works?
Any scientific proof? (Beyond your opinion?)
Patents =/= IP.
Just such misconception invalidate your whole replay.
And if we stick to the TOPIC, then yes there are examples.
Like EU which do not have Software Patents.
Like US. YES MODERN US did not had Software Patents until 90′. And YES US LEAD innovation without them.
Why shouldn’t it?
Is not law made to HELP?
As in HELP foster innovation in useful arts.
If you define programming as useful art, then you can only conclude that patent MUST help. If they harm, they are AGAINST US constitution.
What I’m saying is that ITS common “feeling” in programming community that Patents DO NOT help. That they are HARMFUL.
So you can FORCE upon industry this law, but do not expect warm fillings from “lemmings”. Nor expect any respect for such law.
SOFTWARE CAN NOT GET “PROTECTION” FROM PATENT.
Software can only infringe patent.
That is all about your knowledge about law.
Yes. As a guy who works with startups, I ROUTINELY see my clients acheive funding and build out a company. Sorry you’ve never even tried, but it doesn’t change reality for those that have tried.
I’ve been at some the biggest, and for the record, you are CATEGORICALLY wrong. The ONLY people out there drafting software patents are EE’s and CS guys, at least at the big guys and boutiques.
What kind of third rate practice do you do anyway Mooney?
You have issues that you should see someone about.
It’s amazing what a few years in private practice does to a person. How many of us could pass a psych screening today? HA!
(Yes, I realize that we’re all smart enough to just give the answer that the questioner wants to hear.)
One has to wonder why the heck was IP considered so important as to merit mention in the Constitution?
Maybe it was an attempt to “reward the cronies” of the drafters.
Nah. Impossible to imagine that. It’s far more likely that the intent was to benefit black people and women.
Alun:
You are exception, but you are also a chemist, which theoretically places you even further away from having a clue about software.
There’s really no reason in 2012 that an electric engineer would “theoretically” know more than a chemist about programming. I apologize for breaking that shocking news to you.
Chemists have been programming computers for their own purposes for a long time and many continue to do so. I took an organic chemistry lab where we were required to write our own program for analyzing nuclear magnetic resonance spectra.
Remember: programming is so easy that there is essentially no enablement requirement. All you need to do is describe what the software does and voila! the artisan of ordinary skill will take care of the rest. That much I learned from the esteemed commenters here who are “experts” in the field.
I’ll wager that at any of the larger firms out there doing patent prosecution that every prosecutor employed more than two years has drafted an application that includes a “computer-implemented” invention. And why not? That’s where the “action” is, isn’t it?
Renee,
You too are invited to submit a shining example of a modern advanced society that has thrown off the ‘oppressive’ shackles of IP law, abolishing same and now live in Nirvana for all the rest of the world to follow.
WAKE UP.
“Just like when the government created a patent office.”
More anti-patent self-defeat from MM.
One has to wonder why the heck was IP considered so important as to merit mention in the Constitution?
I freely admit that I write software apps and I am not a programmer. I am an electrical engineer, with my engineering experience being in RF. I failed to learn the Fortran I was taught (showing my age) and taught myself Basic. No doubt that will provoke chuckles from actual programmers, but it shows I have some concept of programming, which ironically was not learnt in a class, if for all the wrong reasons. I do know patent law, though, which is more than most of the naysayers do. You are exception, but you are also a chemist, which theoretically places you even further away from having a clue about software.
Nothing should be patentable.
“They are also ecosystem enablers, and job creators.”
Saying something does not make it true. Patent maximalists love to say thinge like that. Does anyone actually have any EVIDENCE?
I could step up and say “I am a job creator, give me power and money.” Come on now, guys, send those checks! I am a job creator, right? I just said so!
All that ever happens when the govn’t “steps in” is that the cronies get rewarded.
Just like when the government created a patent office.
Sorry IANAE, if you think you have made a point, you have failed.
Try more smart and less @$$.
And in case you were unaware of it, software can earn both copyright and patent protection.
You do know that the protections are different, right? (If you don’t, don’t feel too bad, as you can learn the differences and even the Greatest Patent Attorney Ever (self-professed, that is) has flubbed the differences between what copyright covers (expression) and what patents cover (functionality).
C’mon guys, all I am asking for is one advanced modern society that has seen the light of your Dogma and can shine like a real world example.
In deference to this clearly valid argument, no patent should ever be granted unless the claimed invention is such a good idea that one advanced modern company (other than the applicant, that would be cheating) has seen the light and implemented it.