
Patent Office finds voice, calls for software patent sanity - nickb
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080728-patent-office-becoming-a-voice-for-software-patent-sanity.html
======
apexauk
This reads particularly well to me. Are his sources valid? Can anyone with
more knowledge on the subject suggest whether this guy's talking sense?

~~~
micks56
Timothy B. Lee is a little off in his analysis. He refers to the Supreme Court
not allowing algorithms to be patented. This is true. He is right here. But
his next line about the Federal Circuits is off.

"Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit has ruled that merely loading an algorithm
onto a general-purpose computer and executing it transforms it into a
patentable invention."

That is also true, and furthermore, which Lee doesn't point out, is that the
Supreme Court has affirmed this. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).

The often cited landmark case that affirmed this is State Street Bank. See
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1368
(Mass. 1998).

That decision ruled that an algorithm that is calculated by a computer meets
the statutory subject matter of patentable inventions. The Federal Circuit in
Massachusetts decided that case. The Supreme Court declined to review the
decision because at that time the SCOTUS thought the Federal Court got it
right.

I am still reviewing Lee's other analysis. There is lots of stuff there. It
will take some more time.

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
In any case, if the principle stands that embodying an algorithm in a general-
purpose computer does not meet the standard for a patentable device, so many
bogus patents will be invalidated that it will be like Christmas. We can end
this ridiculous cold war and get on with the work of creating great software
without worrying about trolls and bullies.

We're not there yet but there's more hope now than I've felt in ages.

