

Bilski v. Kappos - tshtf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf

======
tc
Key quote from the majority opinion:

"With ever more people trying to innovate and thus seeking patent protections
for their inventions, the patent law faces a great challenge in striking the
balance between protecting inventors and not granting monopolies over
procedures that others would discover by independent, creative application of
general principles. _Nothing in this opinion should be read to take a position
on where that balance ought to be struck._ "

The entire court held that the patent application in question should be denied
as it represented only an abstract idea. The majority opinion declined to give
much further guidance other than to emphasize that 1) the law should be
interpreted using the plain meaning of words in the statute, and that 2) the
machine or transformation test is not an exclusive test of whether a claim is
patent-worthy.

Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayer concurred with the decision, but
would have denied the application based on a more strictly defined
interpretation of the word "process," noting that the majority's acceptance of
a looser interpretation "can only cause mischief. The wiser course would have
been to hold that petitioners' method is not a 'process' because it describes
only a general method of engaging in business transactions—and business
methods are not patentable."

Breyer and Scalia separately emphasized that the machine or transformation
test is still _useful_ , though not exclusive, and that there is much
agreement between the majority opinion and the concurring one.

\--

At the end of the day, it appears that this decision will lead lower courts to
continue ruling, with new reassurance, that patents on software and business
methods _are_ valid as long as the patent claims meet the statutory criteria
of being novel, useful, and non-obvious. Patent applicants simply need to be
more careful than Bilski in ensuring that their claims don't on their face
seem like common abstract ideas.

Given the language of the statute, the history of prior rulings, and the broad
Constitutional authorization given to Congress to grant patent monopolies,
it's difficult to take issue with their narrow ruling. The real problem we
face is one of modern information theory colliding with an 18th century
experiment in government-granted monopolies.

This is the end of the road (in the US) for challenging these types of patents
_en masse_ via the courts in our lifetime. The fight, if it is to continue,
will now shift to influencing Congress to make changes.

------
muerdeme
Majority(5): Business methods are not categorically barred, but this
particular patent is not eligible subject matter under 101 because it
encompasses an "abstract idea." Machine-or-transformation test is NOT the
exclusive test, but no further direction is given in terms of a standard.

Concurrence(4): J. Stevens writes for the four typically liberal judges, who
are in favor of categorically barring business methods.

Overall, the judgment is 9-0 to strike down the patent. Software patents are
not directly addressed, but the initial impression is that the opinion will
likely make it easier to obtain "pure" software method patents because the
machine-or-transformation test is insufficient to reject a a claim under 101.

~~~
_delirium
The majority really only had 4 strong votes on that point: Scalia also signed
onto the separate Breyer opinion which held that, while the machine-or-
transformation test isn't the _sole_ test, it's still the main useful one.

------
kgrin
Summary: the court ruled narrowly on the patent in question (over-broad),
while punting on the actual issue of "business methods" patents. Result (for
everyone but the actual litigants in this case): no change from the status
quo.

------
mindcrime
Bummer. They managed to uphold Bilski without actually accomplishing anything.
Well... without accomplishing much anyway. Maybe this decision will help every
so slightly in terms of establishing more firmly that an "abstract idea" can't
be patented, but I why wouldn't they have taken a firmer stand... especially
one that would have effectively eliminated software and business method
patents? <sigh />

------
fizx
Thought experiment: If software patents were to have become invalid, and
someone has a patented widget, could I legally recreate it in Second Life?

