OA, as an inventor, I see you appreciate and understand the importance of protecting the products of your labor. It seems strange to me that individuals who promote capitalism would not give the benefit of the doubt to the inventor. The vast majority of our clients are able to quickly answer several questions which I consider integral to beginning the patent process.
1. Is there anything like this already in your industry?
2. What is the need? and how does your invention address the need
3. If there currently is not a need, how will your invention disrupt your industry or other industries?
4. How will you monetize this invention?

In Alice's case, there was nothing like it out there, it saved clients billions in costs, it was obviously valuable or CLS would not have stolen the technology. The CAFC case revolved around not whether Alice was the inventor but IF the patent covered invention criteria. In other words, was this within the scope of invention (section 35 USC 101-patent statute). Their argument was if you combined computers + communication systems to settle financial transactions it is not in the subject matter of inventions.
It is impossible to logically suggest that something that uses computers and communication systems is NOT in the subject matter of inventions. A computer is NOT an abstract idea. Communication systems exist, are tangible-not abstract. The court has NEVER defined abstract ideas. The court was purposefully vague, because they are unanimous in feeling anti-patent in general. Justice Thomas, probably been the strongest on patents, has referred to patents as "monopolies." This shows inherent bias and an erroneous definition for patent in the first place.
George Mason University School of Law has an intellectual property center pursuing some of these intellectual battles. It may be too late...

Yes it was

OA,

Good points. I do not object to comments about patents that are directed to general knowledge (e.g., do patents foster economic growth and they a natural right) but I do object when people who have no expertise in patents start making pronouncements about whether the claims should be held patentable.

This case really was only about whether Alice's described (claimed) something that was an invention. It was not about whether Alice was the inventor (first to create this invention). A computer and communication system that helps settle financial transactions is clearly an invention - it is a human creation with an objective result.

Robbie your criticisms constantly go to areas you have no expertise in. You ignore that patents are property rights, you ignore that patents are the most expensive, most examined, most time consuming property right to obtain. But somehow, with no knowledge of patent law you think you can say that Alice should not have obtained a patent. You do this without understanding how claims work, without reading the patent and the claims, without looking at the file history, without understanding the underlying technology. Gee - its like arguing over Electromagnetics with someone who has not even taken a basic engineering physics course.

I am happy to discuss those aspects of patents that do not require expertise, but when you think you can spend 15 minutes reading some article on this and then provide a pronouncement on this patent then you are being absurd. It's like arguing with someone who has no knowledge of EM over the Brewster angle.

Hear are some things that do not require expertise in patents:

1) Are patents property right?
2) Should software be patentable?


I down vote people who don't know what they are talking about, but have strident, unsupported positions. If you don't want to be down voted, either get some expertise in the field or stick to things you actually have the requisite background in.


I am not an expert is software programming. I would not spend 15 minutes reviewing some software you wrote and say it is useless, or tell you how you should have structured the software or tell you what language you should of used. I would not tell a heart surgeon how to best perform heart surgery.

The majority of the experts disagree with you. The implications of the ruling are highly confusing and contradictory. If Alice's invention is ineligible, then how software patents have been written for the last 30 years are invalid as well. Basically the court tells us-stay away from the financial sector with your inventions. It is protecting Wall Street with several of these software cases. That directly contradicts Bilski, which says you may patent business methods. Finally, the court argued a strawman with the argument "adding a computer" to [invention]. That is not at all how the claims of the patent read. The Justices do not understand claim construction. So, in the end, their ruling is well, we can't explain it, but we know it (ineligibility) when we see it. You have argued the same. You have not given a definition for invention and you have not stated why Alice's patent should not be an invention-only that you think it shouldn't. db has spent hours going over the patent in order to determine it was a valid patent. He understands claim construction and is well versed in the prior art. He has laid out a definition for invention, and as simply as possible, given a reasoning for why Alice had a patent, why software is eligible for patenting and the implications if software is going to not be patentable in the future. I have read through every comment on this post in support of the ruling. People have given their opinion without objective support for their opinion on which patents are spurious, how many are that way, why there should be no patents, and why software should not be patented, nor any evidence for this was invented a long time ago. Finally, there was even one comment that stated they knew they violated patents, but they didn't care because they "needed" them for their own technology-so the definition of "spurious patents" were, patents which they needed but were unwilling to recognize as legitimate property. Pretty frustrating on this site...

Good morning khalling,
Wow! This thread has made a lot of waves. I see quite a bit of contention. It is a subject far afield from my expertise so I hesitate to offer an opinion. I will say that my spidey senses alight when I read in the comments section below the linked to article, that the decision is right because the system as previously established "no longer serves the greater good of society."

Isn't the purpose to serve the inventor first for a limited period so as to foster innovation which will later have a byproduct of benefit to society as a whole? As a layman I also wonder what kind of incentive for software developers may be diminished and how this may slow development... right or wrong... I wonder of the expertise and technical knowledge of the SCOTUS. Even in local court cases where colleagues of mine have sued for payment, judges unqualified to judge the efforts and technical aspects of the industrial manufacturing processes have ruled unfairly for deadbeats that did not wish to pay for services rendered because despite monumental efforts on the part of the manufacturers the unique designs were found wanting for the chosen process. If a buyer designs a part to be cast that is a challenge to produce soundly without modification and refuses to allow for deviations in pattern design which could be reversed in secondary machining processes it is not the fault of a casting facility that the parts as designed could not be produced error free. It is a unique condition of a part that has never been attempted before.

Like I said, I am ignorant in such matters and defer to expert opinion. If every layman could do my job I would be without one...
Respectfully,
O.A.

All creation begins, starts with the human mind. All property rights are protecting the property of one's mind. Patents are the most fundamental of all property rights because they are directly tied to the property of the human mind-right at the source, so to speak.

every inventor who pursues a patent is attempting to gain market advantage. Please distinguish between government enforcement and coercion...

the ruling will have broad implications, regardless of the poor, intellectually bankrupt decision. Even those siding with CLS, who are experts, and want to limit the eligability of software patents, agree the ruling does not provide guidance on how to determine eligability and has directly contradicted earlier decisions. It's a hot mess. If you were the CEO/inventor for Alice, after spending thousands and many years to get the patent, to be stolen from (CLS does not deny infringing) only to have your property stripped from you(after spending millions to defend the patent), would you ever file for another one? If you are a VC company, looking at funding tech startups, and you have always used as an objective measure, the patent portfolio as one large measure to determine the company's value (after all you are investing in the technology), and you are aware of this ruling, has your investment risk gone up or down? Your business model has certainly changed. and a high tech startup relying on its intellectual property portfolio, has just watched all the locks removed from their house, and the police will not only NOT show up to arrest the robbers but will charge you for the courtesy of looking around and determining-it wasn't your stuff in the first place.

Mike you are not listening. An invention is a human creation with an object result. Mathematics does not have an objective result, it is just descriptive.

I don't now nor ever have supported any type or sort of moocher and have struggled against many throughout my career. I fully understand and support valid property rights, created, earned, or procured by voluntary agreement.

We simply disagree on who was the moocher or if there was a proper invention providing for property rights in the instant case. You obviously support Alice's proposition that they invented something - I don't.

I have no disagreement with anything you've just said.

"moochers that attempt to gain market advantages utilizing government coercion..."
a government which does not enforce property rights is no government. It is anarchy