By Dennis Crouch
50-years on, we still don’t have the answer as to whether computer programs are patentable.
The Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari in the software patent case of ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD. V. CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL, ET AL., Docket No. 13-298 (Supreme Court 2013). The Australian patent holder Alice Corp presented the following question:
Issue: Whether claims to computer-implemented inventions – including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture – are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by this Court.
In a highly fractured en banc decision, the Federal Circuit determined that Alice Corp’s claims lacked eligibility. Because none of the opinions in the decision carried a majority, the result was that the Federal Circuit only added confusion to the area.
Alice Corp’s Patent No. 7,725,375 covers software for managing the risk associated with an online transaction essentially by using an electronic escrow service. Claim 26 recites how the system would work:
26. A data processing system to enable the exchange of an obligation between parties, the system comprising:
a communications controller,
a first party device, coupled to said communications controller,
a data storage unit having stored therein (a) information about a first account for a first party, independent from a second account maintained by a first exchange institution, and (b) information about a third account for a second party, independent from a fourth account maintained by a second exchange institution; and
a computer, coupled to said data storage unit and said communications controller, that is configured to (a) receive a transaction from said first party device via said communications controller; (b) electronically adjust said first account and said third account in order to effect an exchange obligation arising from said transaction between said first party and said second party after ensuring that said first party and/or said second party have adequate value in said first account and/or said third account, respectively; and (c) generate an instruction to said first exchange institution and/or said second exchange institution to adjust said second account and/or said fourth account in accordance with the adjustment of said first account and/or said third account, wherein said instruction being an irrevocable, time invariant obligation placed on said first exchange institution and/or said second exchange institution.
The patent also claims “a computer program” for accomplishing the same result.
I think the vast majority of software should be disqualified as obvious for the same reasons I think a carpenter doesn’t deserves a patent for each new and unique piece of carpentry s/he creates. Software is a tool used to make a computer perform functions by manipulating switching/logic capabilities, not unlike the tools a carpenter uses to craft functional furniture by manipulating the physical characteristics of wood, metal and fasteners. To be sure, there is much skill involved in both software and carpentry. But are the fruits of this skill new and nonobvious to others of ordinary skill in the art? Rarely.Take a room with 1,000 software PHOSITAs and a room with 1,000 carpenter PHOSITAs and ask one of them (at random) to create a new piece of software and carpentry, respectively. Each one will use the same set of standard tools and building blocks as the rest of his/her peers would have used to create the piece. So there is nothing in the creation or the final piece that is new or nonobvious to the relevant PHOSITA. They’re just applying already known tools and building blocks to a new task.The only new thing is that someone ordered the creation of a piece of software or carpentry to accomplish a new task. But that in itself is not new and nonobvious if the final result simply uses the same tools and building blocks inherent to a computer/software (i.e., switches, logic, functions, variables, etc.) or carpentry (wood, metal, screws, rivets, glue, etc.). If a piece of new software simply manipulates a microprocessor’s logic capabilities to perform a new task, the software itself is doing nothing nonobvious (from the perspective of a PHOSITA). A piece of software that takes input X and outputs Y, instead of input A and outputs B, is no more new and nonobvious than a piece of furniture that holds trophies instead of books, fitted for one room instead of another.Where software should remain patentable is where it pertains to controlling a unique device with functionality beyond standard microprocessor switching and logic.
I think the vast majority of software should be disqualified as obvious for the same reasons I think a carpenter doesn’t deserves a patent for each new and unique piece of carpentry s/he creates. Software is a tool used to make a computer perform functions by manipulating switching/logic capabilities, not unlike the tools a carpenter uses to craft functional furniture by manipulating the physical characteristics of wood, metal and fasteners. To be sure, there is much skill involved in both software and carpentry. But are the fruits of this skill new and nonobvious to others of ordinary skill in the art? I think not.Take a room with 1,000 software PHOSITAs and a room with 1,000 carpenter PHOSITAs and ask one of them (at random) to create a new piece of software and carpentry, respectively. Each one will use the same set of standard tools and building blocks as the rest of his/her peers would have used to create the piece. So there is nothing in the creation or the final piece that is new or nonobvious to the relevant PHOSITA. They’re just applying already known tools and building blocks to a new task.The only new thing is that someone ordered the creation of a piece of software or carpentry to accomplish a new task. But that in itself is not new and nonobvious if the final result simply uses the same tools and building blocks inherent to a computer/software (i.e., switches, logic, functions, variables, etc.) or carpentry (wood, metal, screws, rivets, glue, etc.). If a piece of new software simply manipulates a microprocessor’s logic capabilities to perform a new task, the software itself is doing nothing nonobvious (from the perspective of a PHOSITA). A piece of software that takes input X and outputs Y, instead of input A and output B, is no more new and nonobvious than a new piece of furniture that holds trophies instead of books, fitted for one room instead of another.Where software should remain patentable is where it pertains to controlling a unique device with functionality beyond standard microprocessor switching and logic.
My proposed amendment to 35 USC 101 to Stop the Patent Eligible Subject Matter Madness:Whoeverinvents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, orcomposition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain apatent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.Patentabilityand patent eligibility of an invention shall be considered only for each claimtaken as a whole, without disregarding any element of the claim based on theelement’s presence or prominence in the prior art, the routineness orconventionality of application of the element at the time of filing, or theelement being or embodying written matter, mental steps or processes,algorithms, abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena. The inventive concept of a claim is the claimtaken as a whole.Subjectto the conditions and requirements of other sections of this title, patentabilityand patent eligibility of an invention shall not be negated by (a) preemptionof any subject matter by the invention, including algorithms, abstract ideas, lawsof nature, and natural phenomena; (b) a lack of a spark of genius orinventiveness embodied by the invention, beyond the conditions and requirementsof other sections of this title; (c) the invention embodying a combination ofelements known in the prior art or found separately in nature, so long as theinvention satisfies the conditions for patentability of sections 102 and 103; (d)implementation of the invention in a computer, computer readable media, or asystem including a computer; (e) an inventive concept embodied by less than awhole claim in its entirety; (f) consideration of any limit the patentedinvention would place on use of the invention; or (g) the invention comprisingintangible or transient effects so long as a useful result is produced.
Being non-American, I have a question: to what extent the Supreme Court is bound by the “questions presented” by the party who requested “certiorari”?In my opinion, the core question to be answered to decide whether Alice’s patent is valid is whether any technical implementation is sufficient to make this business method (the involvement of a trusted third party) patentable.Conceivably, the use of a machine might not be sufficient either.In Germany there is the famous “flight cost minimisation” case (published in English in IIC 1988, 538) which is about mechanical equipment serving a business purpose.Eventually one may argue that all patented inventions serve a business purpose (if only because they are supposed to be “useful” by § 101).Of course, I am not advocating unlimited business method patentability, but this type of reasoning IMHO shows that perhaps different arguments should be used than “per se” objections against software patenting (e.g. due to the alleged mathematical nature of computer algorithms).
I hope they’ll keep “business method†distinct from “software†– too many articles and blogs conflate the two, treating them as if they are interchangeable. Most business methods are implemented in software, but the overwhelming majority of software inventions are not for business methods.It seems that many of these cases make a decision about the patent eligibility of business methods only by discussing the patent eligibility of software. Such leads to mangling the jurisprudence around software inventions and gives no structure for analyzing (or even defining) what is a business method.Personally, I believe business methods, under some proper definition, should not be patent eligible, while software more generally should be patent eligible: so long as it is not implementing a business method.Alice v. CLS Bank is about a business method – it’s not the right place to define the patent eligibility of software more generally.
The law according to David Andreasen has been noted. The rest of us will continue to use the U.S. code which recognizes that business methods – as a category – are perfectly patent eligible.
When will the SCOTUS decide if the AIA is even constitutional??? That’s maybe the most important question of the next decade, since millions of future inventions (and the future of innovation in America) will depend on this decision. If it is Constitutional, then the U.S. will soon become like China, India and at best Europe, with regard to future innovation.
Not sure what your point is, TTS. What exactly are you thinking is the unconstitutional part?Added here since I cannot comment to a post under “consideration.”Can you be more specific, TTS?I do not buy the “First To File” constitutional argument that you merely hint at. Prior to the AIA, so-called secondary inventors were fully ‘constitutionally’ allowed.Not necessarily disagreeing with you as to the effects of rewarding Big Corp, but I am looking for actual Constitutional basis for your position. On its face, “First To File” applies across the board.I won’t get you started with Cyber theft, since that is not a part of the conversation, at least you have not tied it in yet.Your turn:
Almost all of it, but especially the change to “First To File”. The Constitution is absolutely ‘crystal clear’ as to who should be awarded a patent and why … “to promote …”. The AIA discourages future independent innovation and rewards large corporations and multinationals (that essentially paid for and wrote the bill, of course). The AIA would be a complete joke, if it didn’t have such serious implications. Our Constitution was drafted to give all American’s EQUAL* rights when it came to ALL constitutional rights (including patents) and the framers did not care one iota what England (or Europe) wanted. So, I don’t think the Founders would have been happy with the AIA simply “bowing to the wishes of the Europeans and Japanese” when it came to changing our longstanding – and commercially proven – patent system. This complete Congressional capitulation in the name of “harmonization” cannot stand as being constitutional and our current system discriminates (financially) against those of “ordinary means” in favor of those with “unlimited means”, especially when it comes to IP rights. There is already one challenge being made to the AIA and I am sure there will be many others.(*Except, unfortunately, to native Americans and slaves – later fixed)And don’t even get me started with regards to the AIA and cyber-theft of IP … Do members of Congress and the President even know what cyber-theft is and how it works (without victims even knowing)?! the Founders even protected (actual) inventors from that threat, even though they were not aware they were being so prescient at the time (kudos to them)! Also see what is being decided – in the courts – in regards to NSA spying and the 4th Amendment and before this, their recent decision with regards to the overwhelmingly supported DOMA. If the AIA gets reviewed by the Supreme Court, I believe there will be a better than 50/50 chance it will be struck down (at least if I could argue the case), So if you are an inventor, keep all those records and witness statements (they could still come in handy) and if you are a patent professional you had better advise your clients to do so, otherwise there could be hell to pay should the courts toss out the AIA (as it should).
Hmm, it seems everyone stuck on the word “new” in 101. But 101 also asserts the patent-eligibility of an improvement on an old machine. While the “newness” of a machine created by adding new software to an old machine is somewhat disputable, the fact that this addition represents an improvement seems quite indisputable, since functionality previously not present has been enabled. So why all the conondrum???
It depends on whether you consider a computer with software to be a new machine or the same machine with different instructions.
Already settled NSII – see Alappat.add: me1398 – sorry, but no such thing as a programmed general-purpose computer, as once a general-purpose computer is programmed, it is no longer a general-purpose computer – by definition.And this is a FACT that you need to accept.
A Federal Circuit opinion does not make an issue “settled”. Does your opinion on an issue immediately confirm to court opinions? me1398 asked about differences of opinion on the meaning of 101. I answered.If I’m talking about the current state of the law, you’ll know because I’ll say so. I hope this helps.[Addition]The Supreme Court isn’t bound by Alappat. see Constitution
The Supreme Court had the chance to overrule Alappat and did not, and in the first case after the Supreme Court told the Court of Appeals Federal Circuit to rethink its 101 jurisprudence, Alappat was reconfirmed.The Court of Appeals Federal Circuit is the court anointed by Congress to bring order to Patent Law and the law as stated by Alappat is controlling law. You are not free to disregard it. Period (so in that sense, yes, it is settled until it becomes unsettled by a higher power).So NSII, unless you can do better, my point prevails. Your answer to me1398 is not correct.
Do you know what settled means? Does your opinion on an issue immediately confirm to court opinions?”If I’m talking about the current state of the law, you’ll know because I’ll say so.” Was this ambiguous? Is the Supreme Court bound by Alappat?
Do you know what settled means? Even Supreme Court decisions become unsettled. The law under Alappat is settled enough for the point under discussion.If you want to dance with angels on the heads of pins of law that may someday be, then such should carry the label of pure conjecture or suffer the comments (rightfully) as such as mine.(btw, your answer to me1398 did not contain the word ‘settled’ – so your grousing here is without merit)another down vote when I am 100% correct – LOVE it.
I didn’t bring up settled. You did, and for reasons that are not readily apparent. Instead of responding to the question that was asked, you changed the question and then offered the misleading response “Already Settled”. It is your opinion that “Alappat is settled.” Will you ever learn that asserting something doesn’t make it true? Don’t bother, I already know the answer.
It’s not a matter of my asserting anything. What I do speak is absolutely correct.Unless you can show that I am somehow incorrect, all that you are doing is drawing attention to the fact that you are incorrect, and then not knowing better than to not draw attention to the fact that you are incorrect.Maybe you already knew that – doubtful as that would make you both an imbecile and a fool.
No.[Edited]I don’t want to modify my response, but I want to make sure that you recognize that I’m not agreeing with you. Imagine me shaking my head dismissively.
Shake your head all that you want – your disagreement is quite immaterial as my statements are 100% accurate.
Wrong. 🙁
LOL – don’t just say it – show it (in law – not in fantasyland).You will not because you cannot.
See ↑
“See ↑”See what? Your non-answer from previously (which remains insufficient)?NSII, your posts are most disappointing – stop trying so hard with angels on the tops of pins and use some real honest to goodness current law in your positions.
(sigh)
Are you going to actually try to present some logical and legal rational, NSII?How about answering the questions on the thread that you just decided were ‘moot’ (most likely because the conversation was not going how you wanted it to go)?
2 thick
Try again – this time with just a little intelligence please.
Pointless
Yes, NSII, your posts are quite that.Try again, try giving some answers. Try using the law (as it is today, not some wanna-be future other world version).Come man, if you are going to take the time to post, put a little thought into it.
egotistical
“Over? Did you say ‘over’? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? He.ll no! â€
“The law under Alappat is settled enough for the point under discussion.”HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Well, I look forward to hearing about just how “settled” it is in the upcoming case. Perhaps the supremes will simply cite Alappat and affirm validity? What do you think anon? Give us a prediction. Perhaps one with heavy reliance on Alappat?
“The [Alappat] majority stated that just because the claims cover a programmed general purpose computer does not makethem nonstatutory. Instead, a programmed general purpose computer becomes a new machine once a computer program is loaded into memory, and is therefore eligible for patent protection.”
Yes, patent-eligibility of programmed general-purpose computers as machines is settled, but a later opinion (I forget which) said something technically ridiculous along the lines that the programming creates “special circuitry” in the general-purpose computer. I hope that the patent-eligibility won’t disappear when judges find out that this isn’t actually the case …
“sorry, but no such thing as a programmed general-purpose computer, as once a general-purpose computer is programmed, it is no longer a general-purpose computer – by definition.”maybe — and I stress -maybe- — by legal definition that could be accurate, but in any practical or engineering sense that’s a ridiculous statement. with the exception of operating systems, most programs don’t “lock out” the general-purpose computer; it remains available for other uses concurrently with the program. when you add non-OS software to a general-purpose computer you still have a general-purpose computer plus the added functionality provided by the special-purpose software.
Actually, the statement is perfectly accurate:legallyfactuallyand any way you want to look at it.
because you say so? lol
No, not because I say so, but because it is so.
Well, we could be talking about different things since we haven’t formally defined “programmed general-purpose computer” …
You cannot define”programmed general-purpose computer,” ass I just explained that no such thing exists.Pay attention.
me1398, you cannot define”programmed general-purpose computer,” as I just explained that no such thing exists.Pay attention.
well, let’s define a “programmed X” as an X device with a non-transitory X-readable storage medium containing a program, and general-purpose computer as a CPU with at least one processing core that is communicatively connected to a data bus having a random-access memory and a hard disk drive that may serve as a storage medium … then it is defined what a programmed general-purpose computer is.
Sorry – no your definition is rejected.
I respectfully submit that these definitions are not at odds with the use of the terms “programmed” and “general-purpose computer” in the art — except perhaps that hard disk drive is too specific in excluding flash-based media but that is mere detail.
We call him patent Jebus for a reason.
You want to start with a machine and add a machine component and then claim that you have not changed the machine?Really?Must be ‘magic,’ right?
I say if its new and capable of producing revenues in a free market system grant the patent because its in need of protection from espionagers called infringers and its the intellectual property of the true conciever however they need more sophisticated methods of determining true conciever and protecting his life from people like Senator Smith and Leahey and the thugs of his AIA
This brings to a merciful close the debates about the precedential force, if any, of the Federal Circuit’s 5-5 “decision” in the case. Let’s hope we don’t get a recusal and a 4-4 affirmance at the Supreme Court.
Of course the problem is that we are dealing with people that do not understand nor do they want to understand science or technology. Basically we know what the Stevens’ four think. (Soot in my ears already has indicated that her understanding of science is the same as Stevens). Shameful that justices would hold views that pre-date the modern information era. None of them appear to have the slightest understanding of modern information processing nor of the basic theories that underlie information processing.
I’d love to hear why someone votes a down on me.Frankly, I think dealing with people like Stevens is offensive. No one in the 21st century should have to deal with justices like Kagen, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, or Breyer. Their lack of knowledge of science and modern philosophy make them unqualified to sit on the SCOTUS. It amazes me the egos these people must have to have such pride in their own thinking when they don’t understand science. Their pride flows from their power and ignorance–not their wisdom and quality of character. No judge is qualified to sit on the Fed. Cir. who doesn’t understand the Church-Turing Thesis. It was offensive to our culture to have to listen to a pencil and paper test in oral arguments of Alice. where judges were listening to and participating in a discussion of an attempt to separate pencil and paper information processing methods from non paper and pencil information processing methods. Anyone who doesn’t understand why that is a ridiculous discussion is ignorant of the information age and unqualified to sit on the Federal Circuit. Face it—if you don’t understand this paragraph, then you are unqualified to participate in any discussion on information processing. And, on this board we have to deal with the Ned who doesn’t even appear to believe that the brain is the basis of his thinking and that a “1” must somehow be represented by his brain. Furthermore, Ned, tell us the structure of a Higgs Boson.You see my tiny brained friends these arguments and Benson do not hold water to those with even a modicum of education. Benson holds water only for those whose philosophy and science is based in the year 1200.
Ahhh, so what they really need is a healthy dose of modern philosophy? “No judge is qualified to sit on the Fed. Cir. who doesn’t understand the Church-Turing Thesis.”Put it in an amicus brief. I’m pretty sure they’ll all understand it. Who knows, perhaps they’ll use it to bolster their conclusion of invalidity? I mean, you can go down in history as the person that made one of the biggest homer simpson DOH moments in the history of patents. “It was offensive to our culture”Now you’re bringing culture into this? You guys will never stop this comedy will you? “where judges were listening to and participating in a discussion of an attempt to separate pencil and paper information processing methods from non paper and pencil information processing methods.”I agree that is just dumb, but they’re trying to patent protect for you NWPA. Hey NWPA, are you going to make a prediction on the outcome of the case? Invalid, valid, tie?
I will make a detailed prediction when the time comes.
Okay, give me a general one for now. Just so you don’t forget ok?
My early prediction– It is going to be held eligible under 101. I think the Stevens 4 will not hold it 101. The right thinking 4 will hold it eligible. Scalia is the wild card here. But, I think that Scalia has enough sense to realize that Lourie is out of his mind. Scalia will smell that anything could be held ineligible under the Lourie test. I think Scalia will realize that is not the right result. Even Moore if you read her opinion realized that it would come after all sorts of areas not just software. That EE was going down the tubes as well potentially other areas.I think there is the potential for a massive smack down of the anti’s. The anti-patent entrepreneur (APE) Lemley may have a surprise coming to him when they realize that his functional claiming paper is gibberish.I mean do you even realize that under the Lourie test a refrigerator could be held ineligible?
“Even Moore if you read her opinion realized that it would come after all sorts of areas not just software”Yeah but very rarely. “That EE was going down the tubes as well potentially other areas.”Oh pshaw, people in other EE areas simply amend their claims a bit and they’re all good. “I think there is the potential for a massive smack down of the anti’s”Granted. But no corresponding potential for a massive smackdown for the “pro’s”? “I mean do you even realize that under the Lourie test a refrigerator could be held ineligible?”If claimed abstractly I suppose there is some manner in which you could probably manage to mess it up. But that would be difficult, even for one like yourself that probably sits and pops out ineligible junk day in and day out.
make a pre-prediction
OK. Have to think about it a bit.
Your negative votes without comment let me know that you are policy and not substance based.
That would be epic.
The actual case is not about software patentability at all, but about patenting business methods. If “abstract” business methods are not patentable (Bilski v. Kappos), are computer-implemented business methods sufficiently concrete to be patentable, even if the computer implementation is straightforward?IMHO the core issue is whether business methods should be patentable at all. Doesn’t a firm like Alice who is specialized in developing innovative financial business methods deserve a reward? If you believe that the answer is naturally “yes”, keep in mind that consultants usually are rewarded by a one time payment rather than an exclusive right for an extended period of time.Property rights on business methods are incompatible with a free market society.
Fritz, a lot of the hue and cry about the MOT being the exclusive test submitted by the likes of IBM and its fellow travelers at the time was that the MOT would place in the question software patents, and that software was a legitimate industry. They argued that the problem with the Bilski claims was not that it was a business method but that it was not “technological.” The clear implication of that argument that is if one had tied the Bilski claims to a computer implementation, that would solve the problem.So the way the Supreme Court decided the case was to make the MOT a nonexclusive test, and state that the Bilski claims were abstract, but not why they were abstract in any clear manner. They could’ve been abstract because they manipulated abstract concepts. Are they could be abstract because they were not tied to a machine or any specific software.I think the issue really is broader than business methods per se. It really is whether they are manipulating abstract concepts and whether the claim ends in a number or something equally abstract. If it does, it is not eligible.
In advocatus diaboli mode, I would argue that finding a number can be very valuable – and costly.The essence is that property rights for business methods are inappropriate in a competitive market society. Competition may cause damage to firms, and still protection is inappropriate.Communism at first sight seems very efficient, but experiments have duly shown that capatalism is a better system;)
Well Fritz, if we were going to limit ourselves to business methods, another problem arises in that was identified by the Supreme Court in Bilski. Is there a clear accepted definition of a business method? Of course there is not, and that is another problem.
You are right. I ventured the defintion that a (true) business method is a proces not *any* PHOSITA can accomplish. The PHOSITA should be contrasted with an inventor, whose work is inherently uncertain. In this dichotomy, businesmen executing bisiness methods are like inventors, and their “raw material” is not patentable like pure science as the raw material for inventors is not patentable.Note that this is similar to the statement that § 112 must be observed. Of course, § 112 can not replace § 101, but an (alleged) invention that cannot be described in the way required by § 112 (=sufficient for any PHOSITA) is likely to be non-patentable subject-matter under § 101.This definition may not exclude all business methods – but actually it is hard to tell since there is no other reliable definition.Somehow paradoxically, all inventions eventually serve a business purpose, if only because they are required to be “useful” under § 101 (or susceptible of industrial application in art. 57 EPC – which is the same according to art. 27(1) TRIPS). So that is not a decisive criterion.
One can show that communism does not work even on the minor scale by asking a few folks to inhabit an apartment where everyone must contribute to the refrigerator according to their whim and everyone can receive from refrigerator according to his needs. It would quickly be observed that some spend all their time watching TV and laughing at the fools who work hard and fill that refrigerator.
Isn’t that the “tragedy of the commons”? I was actually referring to the idea to protect businesses and gratning them exclusivity by patents, obviating the need to compete.It is very clarifying to remember that patents originated as privileges. And as early as 1623 the British understood that these monopolies were not necessarily a good thing (Statute of Monpolies).In one of his famous papers on patent politicy, Fritz Machlup explained that in the French revolution (1789) the concept of “intellectual property” was preferred over “privilege”, since the French revolution established property as a “holy and inalienable right”, while “privilege” clearly did not fit the ideas of freedom and equality of the Revolution (liberté, égalité et fraternité).In sum, it was called a property for (18th century) populist political reasons, and ti hide that a patent is actually a privilege. And privileges should be exceptions, if granted at all. Patents are not a kind of copyright for inventions, granted to inventors like copyright is “granted” to authors.
Well, the American revolution happened in large measure as a revolt against the monopoly of the East India Trading Company, that first received a 15-year patent from QE I in 1601. link to books.google.com?…See, pp. 2-4.
The Supreme Court held in US v. Am. Bell Tel., 128 US 915, 363 (1888) that a patent for invention was not a prerogative of a monarch, but a right held by law.”The patent, then, is not the exercise of any prerogative power or discretion by the President or by any other officer of the government, but it is the result of a course of proceeding, quasijudicial in its character, and is not subject to be repealed or revoked by the President…”
sounds like the house I rented with a bunch of classmates my senior year in engineering school
Ned, “manipulating abstract concepts”? What gibberish. A computer is sitting there performing useful work for real people. It takes time, energy, and space to transform the information — just like your brain. The functional claims define a definite set of solutions.Tell me what in the world does “manipulating abstract concepts” mean?
The fallacy is easy to see:Can you obtain a copyright on an (abstract) thing that “manipulat[es] abstract concepts?”Just as ‘math’ is not allowed to be copyrighted, yet software can be copyrighted, and thus software is not math, and just as “1” is not software, Ned’s arguments are fallacies. That he persists in presenting fallacies when such are clearly shown to be so is a discredit that he seems oblivious to.Add: As NWPA notes, several of the items are not purely abstract. Risk, Quality and Price can each be quantified and defined so as to be non-abstract (with a measure of objectivity based on said definitions). Ned, you are simply off-base on these items (and I have explained why previously).