
IBM wants to change US law to allow software patents again - zoobab
http://techrights.org/2017/02/06/ibm-marian-underweiser-lobbying/
======
PatentTroll
Alice didn't 'disallow' software patents, as they weren't 'allowed' before
Alice. In fact, software patents have never been patentable subject matter in
US law. While Alice certainly has made it more difficult to protect software-
related inventions (lol, that's the term we use) it is still very possible to
get a patent issued on an invention which you would consider a 'software
patent.' So it is not at all surprising that the IPO wants to lobby against
Alice and anything that makes getting patents harder. But I'll submit this to
the HN community: the biggest players such as IBM will always be more likely,
in the aggregate, to get patents on what they want. They have the biggest
budgets, the most lawyers, and the longest term mindset to stick with it.
Sometimes it can take a decade to get a patent issued. Smaller companies with
limited budgets and more direct needs are, in my opinion, affected more by
anything that makes patenting harder. So keep that in mind when thinking about
these issues.

EDIT: to address the substance of the IPO's proposal, it's actually mostly
good IMO. One big focus of this proposed amendment is to separate 101
(eligibility) from the other requirements of patent law, like 102 (novel), 103
(non-obvious), and 112 (written description). This is by and large a good
thing. Whether or not a patent is eligible should not be muddied by whether or
not it is actually new. It confuses the issue and has led to some really bad
law. And the wording of the proposed 101(b) doesn't jump out at me as a bad
idea, although I'm not sure what the hidden gems are in that language. It
appears that the intent is to make an easy, bright-line rule which may be more
inclusive than the current standard, but would almost certainly be easier to
administer. And that is a win for everyone, because as I allude to above, the
big players win when there is ambiguity. And I personally believe that
software should be patent eligible, the work that a software engineer does is
every bit as meaningful and important as a mechanical engineer. Every software
producing professional should be on board with this. But, if it is not novel
and/or obvious, then it should not be patented. But that is the realm of
102/103, not 101. Basically, the software patent 'problem' should be addressed
by more flexible non-obviousness rather than blanket denials of the entire
category.

