Posts Tagged: "Software"

So the fact that a method or process may be performed on a computer is not enough. I dare say that strict adherence to the Federal Circuit test in Bilski would compel a similar ruling that a method or process is not patentable even if it must be performed on a computer. Thus, the take home lesson moving forward must be that it is not enough to recite a computer, or even articulate an invention that necessarily must and only can be performed on a computer. At least for now these types of inventions must be described with a level of particularity that explains the innovation on a system level.

I thought it might be interesting to take a look at a few recently granted patents and see some of the far more important inventions that are worthy of obtaining patent protection. Before I go any further allow me to point out that I am not trying to beat up on the Patent Office here, but rather to illustrate the complete and total reckless stupidity that is gripping the debate relating to whether we should allow software patents and business method patents. The Patent Office issues patents (again, hurray!) and they are not and should not engage in picking what subjectively warrants protection, KSR and the Supreme Court notwithstanding.

Normally trying to figure out what a court will do is a waste of time, particularly so when that court is the Supreme Court, which is not bound by precedent of any kind given that they are the court of last resort. Having said that, the Bilski Federal Circuit decision is of such importance and inventors and clients cannot simply stand still waiting for a decision, holding themselves up until things become clear. In trying to piece together what might happen I think we should dissect some of the patent writings of the Justices, so without further ado lets begin with Justice John Paul Stevens.

At 2pm ET on November 9, 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled the session to a close announcing that the case had now been submitted. The arguments were good, and the Court was most assuredly hot, peppering both sides with question after question seeking to probe the issues. It is clear that the Supreme Court did their homework and spent no time gravitating to the weak points of the parties.

If you are going to read only one of the briefs in this case I would strongly recommend the Medtronic amicus brief, which was filed in support of neither party. Much of the Medtronic brief is devoted to explaining what the company does, some of the key medical innovations created by the company, why these innovations have helped improve the quality of health care for real people, and what technologies they will no longer be able to seek patent protection for, which will all but certainly lead to less medical innovation, which is hardly good for society.

On Monday, October 26, 2009, Google, Inc. was sued for patent infringement relating to its new Chrome browser by Red Bend, Ltd., an Israeli corporation and Red Bend Software, a Delaware corporation located in Waltham, Massachusetts.  Red Bend, Ltd. is the owner of US Patent No. 6,546,552, and Red Bend Software is the exclusive licensee of the ‘552 patent (hereinafter…

Amazon Technologies, Inc., received US Patent No. 7,610,382, which relates to a computer implemented method of marking copies of content distributed on a network. More specifically, the patent discloses and claims a variety of embodiments of a method and associated apparatus for programmatically substituting synonyms into text content distributed through a Web service.

Sure, a computer programmer with time on their hands can write code and freely give it away, but that is not a business model or innovation strategy that will lead to widespread acceptance or use. In order for open source companies to grow they need to rely on investors who fund development, and investors are only going to be interested in funding development if there is a proprietary strategy in place. It is as simple as that.

The reason giant companies hate patent trolls is because they are not capable of being counter-sued. There is no deterrent effect because patent trolls do not make, use or sell anything, they just sue. So giant companies are targets in the same way that smaller companies without patents are targets of big companies with patents. No one should aspire to be a target. A simple truth is that a small business without patents might as well dress themselves up as a buck during hunting season complete with a bulls-eye pre-drawn. So here is the case for every business to get patents, particularly software patents. Ignore it if you like, but you do so at your own peril.

Dmitry Brant, a DC patent attorney at a top patent law firm, recently launched a new software product aimed at the patent market named Patent ClaimMaster.  Patent ClaimMaster is a Microsoft Word plugin that helps you improve the quality of your patent documents while reducing costs. With Patent ClaimMaster you can turn cumbersome and time consuming tasks into simple tasks…

A little over a week ago, in a blog post written by Microsoft’s Deputy General Counsel Horacio Gutierrez started what will certainly become one of the most profound debates the patent and innovation industry has seen in a very long time, and perhaps the most profound debate that has occurred since Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued whether the fledgling…

If you are pro-software patent you need to read this book because it will likely give you some wonderful insights that you can use to help you convince non-believers, and maybe even persuade a patent examiner or two. If you are anti-software patent I would also recommend you read this book as well. Plotkin’s positions are somewhat radical in that not only does he think software should be patented, but he wishes should be patentable as well, and that is exactly what will happen as computer automated inventing becomes increasingly more realistic.

Last week I was at the Patent Office interviewing a case along with Mark Malek, who was in town from Florida to talk firm business, look for office space and interview some patent agents regarding coming to work with us.  The interviews lined up for this trip were all “Bilski-related,” in that the CAFC decision in In re Bilski was…

Without software a computer is nothing more than a box of miscellaneous pieces that can’t do much of anything. They do make nice sticky-note holders, and they collect dust extremely well, but a computer without software is about as useless as a door without a knob, a clock without hands or a car without an engine. In other words, a computer without software is completely and totally useless. It is the software that directs a computer to do unique and often wonderful things, and it is the software that provides the innovative spark, not the machine. We do nothing but an injustice to ourselves to ignore this reality.

Critics of software patents often argue that software should not be patentable because software is too “abstract” to be patented. The patent system was created to protect nuts-and-bolts machines like the steam engine and the cotton gin, not “intangible” creations like software, so the argument goes. In this article I will argue that not only should software be patentable, but…