
Comment on the USPTO guidelines restoring software patents - zoobab
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/comments-public/comments-2019-revised-subject-matter-eligibility
======
jcranmer
Ugh, the USPTO is getting really nasty here. If you actually read the proposed
rules, they amount to saying "if the Supreme Court hasn't _specifically_ ruled
that the matter is patent-ineligible, then we should assume it is patent-
eligible," which is a very myopic view of how SCOTUS has consistently ruled on
patentability in the past decade.

Of course, the real problem here isn't the USPTO, it's the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit's decisions are binding precedent unless overruled by the
Supreme Court, and the Federal Circuit has pretty consistently followed the
test being cited in the guidelines, so USPTO has to follow. This is despite
SCOTUS constantly telling the Federal Circuit that they have it utterly wrong
on patentability; they just haven't gotten the message yet.

~~~
holy_city
>This is despite SCOTUS constantly telling the Federal Circuit that they have
it utterly wrong on patentability; they just haven't gotten the message yet.

The remedy there is for SCOTUS to make definitive rulings, is it not?

~~~
WillPostForFood
The ideal remedy is for Congress to update the patent law.

------
camkego
Today is the last day to submit your opinion in the Patent Office's efforts to
re-empower software patents contrary to the supreme court's finds. Please
consider using the EFF form to submit an opposition letter.
[https://act.eff.org/action/save-alice-tell-the-patent-
office...](https://act.eff.org/action/save-alice-tell-the-patent-office-to-
apply-supreme-court-law)

------
kevin_b_er
A fully expect this administration's agency executives to do whatever it takes
to take profit over people. We saw what another agency head in the FCC did for
net neutrality at the behest of companies desire for profit over people. The
administrations policies here will be similar. Comments to the USPTO will be
ignored unless they favor of the position the politics demand.

------
cgy1
I opened 3 of the comments at random and they were all word-for-word
identical.

~~~
SneakyMission
Those are from a call to action campaign from the Electronic Frontier
Foundation.

[https://act.eff.org/action/save-alice-tell-the-patent-
office...](https://act.eff.org/action/save-alice-tell-the-patent-office-to-
apply-supreme-court-law)

~~~
tptacek
Is there any point to these campaigns? It's not a vote, right? The idea is
that they're supposed to collect diverse arguments and get as many informed
perspectives as they can. "Lots of people pushed a button to post this
comment" is not going to be a very powerful perspective.

~~~
howard941
Sheer volume is worth something. Perhaps only a little after the fiasco at the
FCC with the forged net neutrality comments.

~~~
tptacek
Isn't the FCC process actually explicit about the fact that number-of-votes
isn't a factor? I don't know where I read this, but I feel like I read
something about the regulatory feedback process and thought to myself "this is
exactly how AfD at Wikipedia work" (where voting is also useless and actually
counterproductive).

~~~
howard941
If volume isn't expressly ruled out as a factor it probably ought to be.

------
zaroth
Why are only responses from “Individuals” listed?

~~~
greensoap
Nobody else has submitted their comments yet. The submission window is set to
close today.

These were mostly submitted somewhat automatically via the EFF

------
pnw_hazor
ALICE is a garbage decision.

SCOTUS should focus on enablement rather than subject matter.
[https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html](https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html)

~~~
kirrent
Is there some particular issue with enablement? At least as far as business
method software patents go, enablement is often easily satisfied because
they're commonly a combination of entirely well understood features.

