Supreme Court Rules Software Patents Invalid-Without Ever Mentioning Software Once In the Decision

Posted by khalling 9 years, 9 months ago to Technology
504 comments | Share | Flag

"What this means is that companies like Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Google and others have had the value of their patent portfolios nearly completely erased today. If they wish to remain compliant with Sarbanes Oxley and other laws and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission they will need to level with their shareholders and tell them that their patent portfolios have been decimated."

db is on a plane headed to the Atlas Summit to give a talk about Galt as Inventor. When he gets off the plane, this news will greet him. Imagine a MODERN patent system understanding the manufacturing age but not the information age....
SOURCE URL: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/06/19/scotus-rules-alice-software-claims-patent-ineligible/id=50120/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 9 months ago
    Klein Bottles - decribed by geometry, realized by inventors. Who gets the patent? And why? Why is a glass Klein Bottle more real than the very many drawings which described it. The same applies to the Moebius strip, and network topologies in computering (star, ring, etc.). You do not actually need a working model to get a patent. But these are, indeed, real things which are only material expressions - no less or more than chalk on a slate board.

    http://www.kleinbottle.com/
    http://downlo.tumblr.com/post/5407988460...
    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/images/I...

    As for my not listening, you have posted quite a few words. I searched for "object" in this discussion and found all of the relevant occurrences. By "object result" you mean physical. A Klein bottle is a real, physical expression of a mathematical idea. Computer software is not. Software is just more mathematics.

    Moreover, it is indeed repeatable. You threw that in but I am not sure why. Also any competent patent examiner should know which mathematical proofs are non-obvious, just as they know so much about everything else, apparently.

    I think that our problem - certainly mine - that you have never made a clear, complete and consistent statement, but just reply piecewise to each post making cogent points perhaps but in the midst of ad hominem attacks, calling your opponents socialists and anarchists. Even if we were, that would not change the content of our statements.

    It makes me wonder if you ever actually argue in court (and win).
    ------------------
    Posted by dbhalling 21 hours, 5 minutes ago
    Define Abstract. By definition an invention is an abstraction, just as the word humans is an abstraction that classifies a number of specific instances.
    Reply | Flag | Permalink
    
Posted by $ Zenphamy 13 hours, 56 minutes ago 
It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating an object or a result.

    Posted by dbhalling 13 hours, 31 minutes ago
    Alice was clearly new. Meaning no one had created this combination. It had an objective result and therefore it was an invention.

    Posted by dbhalling 21 hours, 51 minutes ago
    Mike, You are impervious to logic. An invention is a human creation with an objective result (repeatable). An inventor is the first person to create an invention. Property rights are based on creation. Thus patents are property right that recognized the inventor's creation of an invention, just like all property rights. That is OBJECTIVE AND RATIONAL

    Posted by dbhalling 21 hours, 38 minutes ago
    Stealing other people's work is the definition of a moocher.

    Patents are not inherently based on subjective criteria. An invention is a human creation with a objective result. An inventor is the first person to create an invention. Property rights are the law recognizing that creation. Patents are just property rights in inventions. This is objective and logical.

    Non-obviousness is subjective, has nothing to do with patents and was one of the first examples of Judicial activism. You want to make patents objective get rid of the non-obviousness requirement.

    Posted by dbhalling 53 minutes ago
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago
      I agree that mathematics, as theoretical knowledge of method, should not be patentable. When software is only a "mechanistic" version of the calculation as opposed to paper in pencil it should not be either. The question is how to relate software to specific implementations of physical devices in which it is a required element just like any other invention.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 9 months ago
        It is not that it is theoretical, it is that it does not have an objective result.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago
          Theoretical means true as a principle, which has a specific objective result only when applied. The same is true for software in general -- you have to run the program for a particular case to get a result, but the algorithmic method employed isn't itself patentable in that form alone, it has to be necessary for some patentable physical process.

          Not every design of an implementation of something with an "objective result" is patentable either, just like purely mechanical machines.

          More clarification is necessary, philosophically and legally, about the role of software in patentable devices.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 9 months ago
            Yes, the code per se is not patentable (it is just copyrightable). It is only when the the code is used to wire the computer and it becomes a specific electronic circuit is that patentable.

            Why do you say purely mechanical machines are not patentable?

            Once you understand that software is just a way of wiring an electronic circuit most of the problems fall away. One other confusion is that in patent law we do not explain well known components. So we do not explain how to make a compiler for instance, if we are using a standard well known compiler.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 9 years, 8 months ago
              I did not say that "purely mechanical machines are not patentable". I said that "not every design" is.

              Software is not a "way of wiring an electronic circuit". It controls the different states of a fixed, physical circuit when it is run on the computer. But it is the specific software that does that when loaded into the computer. An algorithm is abstract knowledge and cannot do anything until someone implements it by coding it in a specific way.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 8 months ago
                Sure it is. That is why they are called circuits. Did you actually learn any electronics?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 9 years, 8 months ago
                  Yes I "actually learned electronics", mathematics, computer science, physics and engineering. You should stop demeaning and talking down to people who know far more about these technical subjects than you do. Your misrepresentations, whether through unintended misuse of terminology or lack of conceptual understanding, are not helping you to defend your theories of the principles of patents, even to those of us who already thoroughly support intellectual property rights.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 9 months ago
              CODE DOES NOT WIRE COMPUTERS.

              At this moment, the computer upon which I am typing has, in its ram, a specific pattern of information. By your argument, I could patent every moment I use this machine, as the pattern changes, because your argument is that I am "rewiring" the machine from moment to moment. (most of the good work being done by the MMU, granted...)


              Once you understand the difference between hardware and software, then we can talk.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 9 months ago
      The answer is very straight forward, it is the person that creates the physical manifestation. Mathematics is descriptive - it does not do anything on its own.

      By objective result, I mean one that is repeatable and has the same result independent of the observer. See the incandescent light bulb.

      Art is a human creation that has a subjective result. See Atlas Shrugged. It does not do anything on its own, and depends on the observers reaction. The movie AS III is a work of art, but it used inventions to create it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago
        Mathematics is "descriptive" of what? Mathematics is a science of method, not like physics describing and explaining physical reality. The "descriptions" in mathematics are principles of methods and abstract relationships. Those are objective results, but not physical results. Do it again and you get exactly the same answer independently of who does it, in the proofs and in the algorithms. It isn't subjective.

        No idea does anything "on its own". Some person has to understand it in his mind and apply it.

        Software is not all about mathematics. Some of it is calculation and some isn't. Even when it is mathematical software it an encoding of an algorithm in a specific way following additional rules required to get the computer to follow specific steps in a specific way, analogous to doing arithmetic with paper and pencil following 'mechanical' rules as opposed to thinking what the numbers and operations mean as concepts and principles.

        What does this have to do with art?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 9 months ago
          to your last question, distinguishing between processes which have an objective vs. subjective result. Art itself is not patentable. Processes used to create art, are
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 9 months ago
          See my comment on human creation. Mathematics is descriptive of a logical system. It does not have a repeatable, objective result as in science that is independent of the observer. Math just sits there on the page. Clearly, it is a logical system and the result of a person applying the logical system results in an objective answer, which just sits there on the page, i.e., it is descriptive.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 9 years, 8 months ago
            Mathematics _is_ the logical systems it deals with, not a "description" of it as if it were something else apart from the mathematics. It _is_ objective and _is_ repeatable, independent of who does it. It is knowledge, held in human consciousness, not something that "just sits there on the page".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 8 months ago
              No mathematics is descriptive. It has an objective answer, but it does nothing by itself.

              A light bulb puts out light by itself when the correct electrical signal is applied.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 9 years, 8 months ago
                Mathematics is a system of abstract principles understood by human consciousness as a branch of knowledge, not an "answer" and not something that "just sits on a page". It is objective and repeatable independent of whoever does it, and like any other principles in any field does nothing by itself. Calling it "descriptive" does not distinguish it from any other knowledge.

                The design of a light bulb doesn't do anything by itself either. It is the specific way a light bulb is designed that might be patented, not a particular light bulb. Even a particular light bulb doesn't work "by itself". It is designed to function with a specific range of current and voltage, which must then be supplied for it to work.

                The explanations you are trying to give here to characterize patents are not working and not properly describing and distinguishing the subject matter you are addressing.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 9 months ago
        I would argue that applied mathematics can absolutely apply under the same patent rules that you want to apply to software and for exactly the same reasons. A sorting algorithm is an invention I would certainly deem worthy of patent, and it is purely a mathematical concept applied to information as stored or retrieved from a database. RSA and elliptical cryptography techniques similarly employ mathematical computations to enable file encryption/decryption. Computer science at its very heart is the study of mathematics in its most base form. I would argue that the original invention of calculus would have qualified for patent protection - assuming patents existed in the 1600's and you could isolate whether Newton or Leibniz was the original "inventor".

        If you're going to argue that there must be a physical manifestation in order to classify something as patentable, you are going to severely undermine your own argument as to software patents...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago
          Whether or not a particular cryptographic method ought to be patentable, mathematics like calculus and the theory of finite fields underlying elliptic curve cryptography is theoretical knowledge. You can't require that people not think in correct mathematical principles.

          If "applied mathematics" were patentable, you would first have to distinguish what you mean by that from "pure mathematics", since it is all mathematics and there is a large body of theoretical material in "applied mathematics". That knowledge is also hierarchical, as it must be as abstract knowledge. Requiring patent fees to use any parts of it in further thinking and use of theory and algorithms would subject most of what is published and known about mathematics to patent litigation just for thinking correctly in mathematics, economics, science and engineering. The nightmare of lawyers intruding in everything would destroy all science. The ambulance chasers would be in their glory until the parasites had nothing to feed off. The slip-N-fallers would be envious and none of it would be done on behalf of property rights.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 9 months ago
            Patents do not require "that people not think in correct mathematical principles." Patents on cryptography have to do with implementing them in an electronic circuit, perhaps a computer. That is what the patent protects.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 9 years, 8 months ago
              If mathematics were patentable, it would require that we not think in correct principles claimed to be owned by someone else, who could legally prevent it. Fortunately, mathematics is not patentable.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 8 months ago
                Mathematics is not patentable because it does not do anything by itself. It is descriptive
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 9 years, 8 months ago
                  No knowledge or design does anything by itself (and neither does a computer program). Mathematics is no more or less "descriptive" than any other knowledge. It does not characterize mathematics.

                  When a cryptographic method has been patented, it is the use of the mathematics that is prohibited without a license from being implemented for cryptography, not a particular computer program or even a specific set of algorithms used for the program. That is what the battle over pgp was about. If that is to be defended it will take more than saying mathematics doesn't do anything by itself.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 9 months ago
          No it is not. A sorting algorithm uses math, so does all of electrical engineering. That does not make circuits math. This is true of encryption routines, etc. Computer science at its heart is no more about math than any field of engineering.

          Software is a way of wiring an electronic circuit - it is NOT MATH.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 9 months ago
            As a software developer of 20 years, you have your facts wrong, and not just wrong but horribly, fundamentally wrong. You can not develop software without a fundamental understanding of mathematical principles, including sort algorithms, cryptographic methods, etc. You're just flat-out wrong. Look at the curriculum for any computer science degree and there is a TON of math there: calculus, vector calculus, discrete math, etc. Try passing a compilers class without a solid foundation in math. My dad is an electrical engineer and he took classes on those plus thermodynamics (more math), materials (yet more math), and circuit design (more math). Good grief, the fundamental principles of a circuit are built on Ohm's law, which mathematically quantifies the relationship between current, voltage, and power.

            You also make another fundamentally incorrect conclusion: that it is the circuits that make something "patentable". If so, NO software qualifies as patentable. The whole reason you build computers is to allow one to change those circuits or pathways on the fly in response to other conditions! The "circuits" you are talking about in software don't exist for longer than it takes to execute a single instruction before moving on!

            I am left to shake my head in shock. It is all I can do.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 9 years, 8 months ago
              Very simple circuits are based on ohms law, but that law refers to the relation between current and voltage ( from which power can then be derived) when the resistance is linear. Electronic circuits require much more.

              There are also some serious terminology problems here. Software does not create or change "circuits". The circuits are printed on the boards and remain fixed. As a program runs, it sequentially directs changes in the states of the devices as defined by the voltages in the switching circuits.

              When a program is run on a different computer with a different OS the circuits are not necessarily the same, but the interpretation of the states must be. So software is more abstract than a particular hardware implementation.

              A good book for you to read that elaborates on how this works in both the logic and the solid state physics is The Feynman Lectures on Computation. With your background you would have no trouble understanding it and would find it very interesting the way Feynman explains it and puts it all together (and some of it you will already be familiar with)..
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 8 months ago
                Yes, I completely understand that Ohm's Law is a "fundamental" electronics principle. That's why I labeled it as such. There are lots more formulas that go into constructing circuits, such as calculating the voltage across a rectifier, circuit tuning with resistors, capacitors, and inductors, and a whole mess of things I never got into (being a CIS major rather than an EE major) in detail. If I need an explanation of that stuff, I just call my cousin who works for NVidia, who does deal with microcode on a daily basis.

                With regards to circuits, yes, the hardware-based circuits do not change according to software, but only a fraction of what is there is actually in use at any given time. The circuits as a whole do not change, but the software directly manipulates WHICH parts (paths) of the circuits are active at any given time, and it is the sequence of activation of the circuits that gives instructions for processing and eventually ends up with output that is useful. Hardware is a tool - a VERY complex tool with lots of possibilities, but without the software (instructions for use), it is a very expensive paperweight. Just as software by itself is digital noise if it has no method of execution.

                My primary point to dbhalling is that he/she is attempting to contend that only the hardware is patentable. My contention is that neither can be separated from the other without rendering the other useless. As a practical example, I would challenge someone to create a hardware-based database - my professional forte.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 9 months ago
              You are an idiot - you can't do any engineering without an understanding of math. That does not make engineering math. You clearly have no idea what mathematics is about and no idea how computers work. Mathematics is about proofs that advance the logical system in which the specific area of math. Engineering and science is about applying that math. Besides most CS people really do very little math. They worry about I/O issues, they worry about databases, they worry about communication protocols. The idea that CS is about math is beyond absurd.

              Actually, the whole purpose of s/w is to create a circuit. The s/w is does nothing by itself, it is the circuit that does the real work. Like so many CS people your lack of engineering shows you really don't even know what your are doing.Anything done is sw can be done in hardware, but not vice versa.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 9 months ago
                You are a lawyer - not even a programmer - and you are trying to tell me what I have been doing for the last twenty years? What my father did for 25 years? What my father-in-law did for 40 years? What my brothers-in-law currently do for a living?

                The arrogance of presumption on your part in absolute and total opposition to the evidence is shocking - and most especially to someone who claims to place primacy of fact as the pinnacle of one's personal philosophy. I leave you to your own devices.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo