Showing posts with label bilski. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bilski. Show all posts

29 June 2010

Botching Bilski

So, the long-awaited US Supreme Court ruling on Bilski vs. Kappos has appeared – and it's a mess. Where many hoped fervently for some clarity to be brought to the ill-defined rules for patenting business methods and software in the US, the court instead was timid in the extreme. It confirmed the lower court's decision that the original Bilski business method was not patentable, but did little to limit business patents in general. And that, by implication, meant that there was no major implication for software patents in the US.

On Open Enterprise blog.

23 December 2009

All Hail the Mighty Algorithm

As long-suffering readers of this blog will know, one of the reasons I regard software patents as dangerous is because software consists of algorithms, and algorithms are simply maths. So allowing software patents is essentially allowing patents on pure knowledge.

Against that background, this looks pretty significant:

Industries, particularly high tech, may be waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court decision, expected this coming spring, in the Bilski case to decide some fundamental questions of when you can patent business methods. But in the meantime, there’s a newly published decision from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that establishes a new test to determine whether a machine or manufactured article that depends on a mathematical algorithm is patentable. The ruling is a big deal because it’s one of the few precedential decisions that the BPAI issues in a given year, and it will have a direct impact on patents involving computers and software.

For a claimed machine (or article of manufacture) involving a mathematical algorithm,

1. Is the claim limited to a tangible practical application, in which the mathematical algorithm is applied, that results in a real-world use (e.g., “not a mere field-of-use label having no significance”)?
2. Is the claim limited so as to not encompass substantially all practical applications of the mathematical algorithm either “in all fields” of use of the algorithm or even in “only one field?”

If the machine (or article of manufacture) claim fails either prong of the two-part inquiry, then the claim is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.

Now, the devil is in the details, and what impact this has will depend upon its interpretation. But what I find significant is that algorithms are foregrounded: the more people concentrate on this aspect, the harder it will be to justify software patents.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

12 August 2009

Big Bounteous Blue, or Big Bad Blue?

One of the perennial teasers in the world of computing concerns IBM. On the one hand, you have a company that has embraced open source widely across its product line, and made major donations of code (to Eclipse, for example); on the other, it is a massive supporter of software patents, and also sells large amounts of proprietary software. So which is it: Big Bounteous Blue, or Big Bad Blue?

I think this submission [.pdf] to the court concerning the important Bilski case answers that question definitively:


In the months since the Federal Circuit issued its opinion, and to IBM’s great concern, a number of administrative and judicial decisions have rigidly applied the “machine or transformation” test to question—in some cases explicitly—the patentability of software per se. Software technology is vital in addressing society’s most pressing challenges. IBM is committed to ensuring that such technology is and remains patentable.

There we have it: "IBM is committed to ensuring that such technology is and remains patentable" - no two ways about it.

But wait - IBM goes even further, claiming that software patents are so desirable in part because they actually *powered* the rise of free software:

Given the reality that software source code is human readable, and object code can be reverse engineered, it is difficult for software developers to resort to secrecy. Thus, without patent protection, the incentives to innovate in the field of software are significantly reduced. Patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code on a patentee’s terms—which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development.

Well, actually, free software is produced *despite* software patents, in the teeth of their deleterious effects, as every one of your highly-paid engineers and lawyers understands full well.

So, no, IBM, that's a load of cobbler's, and it's disgraceful you should even try to pass off this apology of an argument that patents are somehow precursors of true "free sharing" in a submission to a court considering such an important matter, for self-proclaimed selfish reasons. This is clearly an attempt to head off the criticism that software patents harm free software, the most vibrant sector of computing today, and should therefore be scaled back by the US Supreme Court. Cynical ain't in it.

At least we know where we stand, now, with Big Bad Blue... (Via @zoobab.)

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter and identi.ca.

05 March 2009

Patently Good News

There have been a number of important cases on both sides of the Atlantic concerning the patenting of software recently. In the UK, there were two cases, both initially rejected. Here's the reasoning behind turning down the application from CVON Innovations Limited...

On Open Enterprise blog.

24 February 2009

EndSoftwarePatents.org Phase II

There's no doubt that more and more scrutiny is being applied to patents around the world, with particularly hopeful moves in the US in the wake of the Bilski judgment. So it's a wise move on the FSF's part to turn up the pressure with their EndSoftwarePatents.org campaign:


The Free Software Foundation today announced funding for the End Software Patents project to document the case for ending software patents worldwide. This catalog of studies, economic arguments, and legal analyses will build on the recent success of the "in re Bilski" court ruling, in which End Software Patents (ESP) helped play a key role in narrowing the scope for patenting software ideas in the USA.

For this new phase of End Software Patents work, the FSF has engaged veteran anti-software-patent lobbyist Ciaran O'Riordan, taking over from Ben Klemens as director of ESP. O'Riordan brings years of experience campaigning against software patents in the EU. This knowledge, combined with what was learned during the Bilski work, will form the starting point for a global information resource and campaign. The goal is to make it easy for activists around the world to benefit from existing knowledge, often scattered and sometimes disappearing with time.

That's absolutely right: one of the great things about work trying to claw back some of the ground lost to intellectual monopolies is that it all feeds into itself. The more info you have, the easier it is to build the case with further research and campaigns.

As O'Riordan explains:

"Each campaign raises new evidence and arguments for the case against software patents. The work on the Bilski case uncovered new economic studies and developed legal proposals for how to pin down the slippery goal of excluding software ideas from patentability. To make the most of that work, Phase II of ESP will work on documenting and organizing that information and making it easily reusable. We'll add to that what was learned during the years-long campaign against the EU software patents directive, and then we'll research and document what's happening in South Africa, India, New Zealand, Brazil, and so forth."

Here's to Phase III: victory.

31 October 2008

Bilski: Almost the Big One

Those with good memories will recall a short post I wrote back in February about a case, generally known as “Bilski”, that was going before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). It was important, because it asked the court to rule on the patentability of business methods – something that, like software patents, have blossomed to absurd levels in the US. The judgment came through yesterday, and it's pretty good news for those who would like to see some sanity in this area. Here's what well-regarded the patent law blog PatentlyO wrote....

On Open Enterprise blog.