Patentability Of Business Model And Software Patents Comes Under Court Scrutiny
from the about-time dept
Nearly ten years ago, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) made its ruling in the State Street Bank case, effectively allowing patents on business models and greatly expanding the scope of software patents in one single move. While there are many problems with the patent system, this one decision made for a lot more bad patents very quickly -- and many of the ridiculous lawsuits you see today wouldn't even exist if this decision had gone the other way. While we've seen the Supreme Court suddenly get religion on fixing the patent system in the past few years, it hasn't really touched on the question of software or business model patents.On one case that could have addressed the issue, the court dismissed the case on a technicality, rather than digging into the actual issue, though in the dissent, some Justices made it clear they weren't comfortable with the State Street ruling. Last year, some folks tried to sneak the issue of software patents into another Supreme Court patent case, but that seemed like a stretch, since the case really had little to do with software patents directly. The decision in that case did set things up, though, so that the Supreme Court later could reject software patents.
Now we have another important case to watch. As pointed out by the Troll Tracker, CAFC has agreed to a full court hearing to examine the scope of what can be patented. It may sound like a technicality, but it could be a very big deal. Going back on the earlier State Street ruling could effectively knock out many business model patents and software patents, restoring at least some (though, certainly not all) sanity to the patent system, especially in the technology world.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business model patents, cafc, patents, software patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I would like to patent the business model
The title of the Patent is "Patent Trolling as a Business Model", oh yeah, as a Software and Business Model.
Soon I will be singin:
And they moved to Beverly, Hills that is Swimmin pools and Patent Stars!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I would like to patent the business model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents
In essence Verizon took RFP's and made them into patents and then using those tried to kill the competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they dismiss this one...
Not like I expect much though... America has one of the loopiest legal systems I've seen. Seems like long as you got the cash you'll get out scotfree even if it was capital murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If they dismiss this one...
The guy with the most money wins. What's loopy about that? It's simple and easy to understand. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The people who made the original ruling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The people who made the original ruling
Don't assume malice where incompetence can easily be substituted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The people who made the original ruling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Software patents bad for the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I would like to patent the business model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abstraction Physics
Software simply doesn't fall into the realm of being of qualities supporting patent-ability, nor do business methods.
Abstraction Physics No Kidding.[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not everything can be owned
IMNSHO shared resources can not always be owned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patenteability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents and Corporate Welfare
So follow the herd, you mindless lemmings, and criticize tech patents while you pay top dollar for patented, over-hyped drugs that don't do anything but kill you slowly and make the pharmaceutical companies rich quickly.
The mega-technology corporations and all of their copycat rip-off artist friends thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents and Corporate Welfare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for Change
Marty Zwilling, Founder & CEO, Startup Professionals, Inc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]