Court Ruling Opens The Door To Rejecting Many Software Patents As Being Mere 'Mental Processes'
from the nice-to-see dept
Well, this is getting interesting. Last year, when the Supreme Court ruled very narrowly in the Bilski case, without making any explicit statement (as precedent) on overall software or business model patents, many people were frustrated. Here was a situation where the Supreme Court could have drawn a much clearer map, but it declined to do so. Of course, we wondered if this would just mean that another case would have to make its way to the Supreme Court to get a clearer ruling on software patents. In effect, with Bilski, the Supreme Court basically said "this one test you use is fine, but it's not the only test." It didn't say what those other tests should be, but basically left it up to the courts to decide. However, it did reject the specific Bilski patent for being an "abstract" idea, saying that this was not patentable under Section 101 of the Patent Act.What's been interesting is that this seems to have emboldened a few judges to apply new or different tests (with clear reasons and caselaw for why they do so)... and some of this is leading to more software patents getting rejected. In a new ruling at the Federal Circuit appeals court (CAFC), the court appears to open up a potentially broad path for rejecting all sorts of bad (mostly software) patents by deciding that the Supreme Court's Bilski ruling might not have been so narrow after all.
The specifics are pretty down in the patent law weeds, but the key thing is that the court, as the Supreme Court did in Bilski, uses Section 101 of the Patent Act to invalidate some patent claims. This gives the court pretty broad leeway in how patents can be evaluated under that section -- again by claiming that they're merely "abstract ideas," not patentable under Section 101. Most rulings on patent validity focus on obviousness, prior art or whether or not it meets the basic fundamental rules for how a patent is written. But by opening up Section 101 to wider scrutiny, the court is making it much easier for other courts to reject patent claims, and the court is suggesting that this is a reasonable approach as an alternative test under the Bilski ruling. Basically, CAFC is turning the narrow Supreme Court ruling into a much broader one, and saying to the USPTO and courts that patents on "abstract ideas," broadly defined, should be unpatentable... and then noting that many "software" ideas may be merely abstract ideas.
It seems like perhaps CAFC is getting the message that there are a ton of bad software patents out there, and using Section 101, it's just made it a lot easier for the USPTO and the courts to dump a lot of those patents. All the USPTO or courts have do now is show that the software claim is nothing more than an abstract idea. In this case, the claims in question concerned a patent from CyberSource about doing fraud prevention online by matching your transaction information to your IP address to see if that IP was an indication of potential fraud. As the court noted, there's nothing about doing such a comparison that is anything more than an abstract idea, and, in fact, you don't need a computer or anything to do this at all. It could just be done by a human being and thus, it's not patentable under Section 101. Specifically, the court is rejecting it as a mere "mental process."
It is clear that unpatentable mental processes are the subject matter of claim 3. All of claim 3’s method steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Claim 3 does not limit its scope to any particular fraud detection algorithm, and no algorithms are disclosed in the ’154 patent’s specification. Rather, the broad scope of claim 3 extends to essentially any method of detecting credit card fraud based on information relating past transactions to a particular “Internet address,” even methods that can be performed in the human mindThe court further clarifies the ability to reject bogus software patents by dismantling the usual attempts to make a software patent seem legit by saying it happens "on a computer." Basically, it finds that taking a "mental process" or abstract idea and merely having it happen on a computer is not patentable.
This is potentially a big deal, though you have to imagine it will be appealed. When the Bilski ruling came out, we expected another software patent question would eventually reach the Supreme Court, and this could be an interesting one if the Court decides to take it. In the meantime, though, the USPTO and district court should be on alert that they have pretty broad leeway in rejecting software patents if they're really just "mental processes" not patentable under Section 101 (even if they're done on a computer).
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: abstract ideas, bilski, mental process, patents, software patents
Companies: cybersource
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The laugh is on Google, then, ain't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The laugh is on Google, then, ain't it?
OTOH, just because some courts are doing this, it is safest for Google to continue to pursue its current counterattack plans.
That's $12.5 Billion to buy insurance against potentially huge losses, and the lost of its partners, and possibly the loss of the entire Android ecosystem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The laugh is on Google, then, ain't it?
It'll be interesting to see how this ruling affects things. The "do XYZ, but with a computer" patents and their kind are obvious sitting ducks, but what about patents that relate to user interfaces? Or simple storage of data?
(As a developer, I'd like to see all software patents go. After all, code is simply a bunch of mathematical algorithms, and they aren't patentable.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are 2 claims especially at issue. One is to a method. The other is to a "computer readable medium" (aka a cd, a harddrive etc). The court does the expected thing in invalidating the method claim as directed to a mental process that takes place entirely in the mind, aka a "mental process" which the court notes is a subset of "abstract ideas".
However, in a surprising move, the court construed the claim to a CRM (cd etc. remember?) as actually being a claim to the method which the instructions supposedly on the CRM would cause a computer to do. The steps of this method were recited in the claim. The court then noted that the method was simply the same method as in the method claims and that they were going to consider the CRM claim a claim to a method for purposes of deciding 101. This right here is probably legal error.
Nevertheless, the same result may be achieved, that is, the CRM claims may be invalidated, under the Bilski abstract idea analysis even without considering the CRM claims to be claims to a method.
The chances of this case getting picked up for appeal to the en banc CAFC court or the USSC are kind of small, but I personally hope that it does get picked up. Personally I believe they should not have committed what I note above is likely legal error. Instead they should have invalidated the CRM claims under any number of other ways, possibly even using 101.
As to why this decision happened, one must remember that there are different judges on the CAFC. 9 or 10 of them to be exact atm. Some of the judges like to rule a certain way, and others like to rule a different way. The people that decided this case are a different group of judges from another group of judges that would probably try to decide this case differently and possibly even hold the CRM claims patentable.
On the other hand, pretty much all judges would probably invalidate the method claims. Although I personally do not comment on whether the claims are in fact valid or invalid, as that is a question for a court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A test SCOTUS might like:
Essentially, all *digital* processes and methods and all claimed machines whose novel items can be reduced to such are nothing but mental steps, which we will call a subset of "abstract ideas". Additionally, all machine claims must first have all abstract ideas removed before being judged further for patentability.
While this might go a tad too far, it would be a better rule of thumb that should lead to many fewer sw patent awards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think the courts like to wait 20+ years before reusing rulings under slightly non-obvious contexts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But they didn't invent a CRM. If they actually invented the CD they probably wouldn't have this problem. But the actual media used is irrelevant. If this patent was valid, it wouldn't matter if you used a CD, DVD, floppy, tape drive, punched card, or speech-to-text converter; you'd be in violation.
Since it's clear the media doesn't matter, what's left? Oh, right, the method that the instructions would cause the computer to carry out.
Let me put it this way... could I have patented "a method of storing 'It's A Wonderful Life' on DVD" if I had done so before anyone else? Of course not. I didn't invent the DVD, and the movie is unpatentable. Similarily, they didn't invent the media, and the process is unpatentable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P.S. out_of_the_blue, try some anti-depressants. Then you can be a freetard like the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
WTF is a freetard? Someone who restricts free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously though, rejecting broad and vague patents is a good thing. The less crappy patents going through the system, the better for innovation (and we can all avoid these horribly pointless patent litigation issues).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freetard
Come on, all you freevances out there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freetard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Freetard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Supreme Court basically said that software patents were not legal in Gottschalk v. Benson and has let the matter rest since 1972. By remaining silent they have let the lower courts and the Patent Office experiment with software patents. Now just about everyone but the patent trolls and their attorneys recognize that software patents do not promote progress and actually hold it back more often than not.
I hope the Supreme Court blesses this CAFC ruling. And further, I hope that it signals a real evaluation of the usefulness of other types of patents and their impacts on innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All patents by design hinder progress. This happens whether the hindering was intended or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I agree. I singled software patents out in this case because it is the low hanging fruit of the patent system. Anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in the status quo should be able to see the problems of software patents, even if they believe that other things like pharma patents and traditional hardware patents are OK. In fact, I closed my comment with "I hope the Supreme Court blesses this CAFC ruling. And further, I hope that it signals a real evaluation of the usefulness of other types of patents and their impacts on innovation."
I do think that software patents are somewhat worse than other patents. The main reason is that the speed of innovation in the software industry should be much faster than other industries, and the 17 year term of patents is way, way out of sync with the pace of innovation. I say that software development should be faster, but unfortunately patents are slowing software development to a crawl. It is hard to do any major software development that doesn't run into a thicket of bad software patents.
Another reason that software patents are a little different is because software patents tend to be so bad; as the article notes, software patents are often just documenting mental processes, and those types of patents should not be valid. Software patents seem to breed like rabbits. There is little if any research behind a lot of them; they often read like they are cranked out after a bit of armchair speculation. Examiners lack the background to evaluate software patents, and it is even easier to slip a dodgy software patent through the system than some other types.
Eliminating software patents is a good place to start, but in the long term I hope that it causes more people to raise questions about the merits of other types of patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Software patents
Things are worse than just software patents. There are intellectual patents, which are just ideas (I know I worked on one) which a5re algorithmic in nature but have no implementation. And then there are incredibly vroad sweeing patents, that while representing many years of hard work by the "inventor" are excessively broad. It gets worse when you have written books on a method, taught several classes, promoted the idea, and then somehow get a patent which restricts the use. Hmmmm.
The whole area is a complete mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Software patents
"Mental process" doesn't mean "not valuable", it's just not patentable. Perhaps it could be copyrighted though, generally software enjoys copyright protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not so. The idea of a patent is that I spend a lot money to develop something real - something original that requires a research investment. I tell you exactly what I did and in 20 years you can do the same, but for the first 20 years I get to recover my research investment without competition. Thus, I'm encouraged to make progress because I can make money on my investment.
If you compare that with how the patent system is actually working. Where bogus/trivial patents are being used by patent trolls to extort money then you can see just how broken the system has become.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The only other case to look at is the one where the patent license(s) don't price the product/service out of the market. However, the license(s) will still increase the cost of the product/service. This price hike ensures that progress is held back. Remember that progress isn't solely a better product/service/technology, but also an increase in efficiency, which includes lower costs. So the patent license(s) in even that case do indeed hold back progress.
My argument isn't that patents kill progress, but that it holds it back. Your argument is that patents provide an incentive to create. However, nearly every study I have seen (some of which include before-and-after-patent-law scenarios) show that patents are not needed as an incentive. Some have even shown that patent law decreases the incentive. So we know that patents, by definition, hold back progress, and that patents, by empirical data, has been shown to hold back progress.
We need to abolish patent law entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The patent system is digging its own grave here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So maybe it is not all bad, a broad patent today is the free ticket for tomorrow.
Maybe it even creates some jobs for people digging through all those patents fillings and court decisions LoL
Since patents today are divorced of the implementation today, any implementation done in the future will have broad legal precedent to invalidate similar claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents digging their own grave
If they deny the validity of a past patent they are denying the validity of any actual patent that have the same brroad claims that don't show how it was implemented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It could just be done by a human being"
Since all software is in the end translated to these simpler instructions (which are what the hardware will actually execute), you could act in place of the CPU and run any software by hand. The only thing preventing you from doing so is the sheer scale of the task; while a fast person could do around a few tens of CPU instructions per minute, a common desktop CPU can do billions of them per second.
This is obvious to anyone who has actually studied computer architecture. All software is a sequence of instructions to be followed literally. The only thing a computer can do is follow instructions literally. But a human can also follow instructions literally with "pen and paper".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "It could just be done by a human being"
An electronic computer is different from an analog computer(e.g. slide ruler) but they both can do the same thing.
Are you saying that I can issue a patent that would allow me to stop a human from doing the manual process too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "It could just be done by a human being"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "It could just be done by a human being"
Nope, that is what the bench found out, that the patent was broad and didn't deserve protection because it didn't specified which method it used to reach its purposes, any reasonable educated person can see that.
But if you believe broad patents should protect ideas I'm all for it, since with ideas after the patent expire you will never have to worry about a single patent on that subject ever again.
Inventors would find themselves in 50 years claiming that patents need reform to only allow patentability of the implementation so they can patent their own versions and not have their claims invalidated by past valid patents that are so broad LoL
It is just incredible how life is about circles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "It could just be done by a human being"
That's why the patents are not on the software but the physical process that uses the software as a tool. In this case, the process was a mental one so it got rejected. Now suppose the patent is for a vehicle stability system. Yes, you could perform the same abstract steps as the software, but you would not be able to do it fast enough to be useful. In this example the patent claimed would be a software controlled vehilcle stability system. The code is not patented but the idea of controlling vehicle stability using software would be.
So while so called software patents are obviously damaging to the tech field, simply showing that all software is a series of mental steps is not enough to convince lawyers to invalidate them.
Now in my example, there was a major change in the physical design of the car. What I mean is that it wasn't sitting there waiting to have "stability software" installed on it. Now a PC on the other hand, it's design is pretty much worked out and that design is just to run software. So I think I'd be much harder to claim that anything new had been invented. At least, not anything patent eligible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "It could just be done by a human being"
I hope you meant to add 'in a specific way, using this particular algorithm'. As I could think of multiple ways of doping this in code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "It could just be done by a human being"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's About Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's About Time
The algorithm bit comes from the Benson case, amongst others. In that case the court ruled that because the only useful part of the invention was the algorithm, it was unpatentable. However, unpatentable items are allowed as components of a larger patentable invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's About Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's About Time
You just can't patent the natural law itself, you patent the machine that uses it. Likewise, you can't patent an algorithm. The patent has to be tied to a specific machine or physical process.
I do think the courts make lots of mistakes. They struggle with the technical vocabulary and in doing so attempt to make distinctions that aren't there. I believe the above requirements should make all software used on general purpose computers unpatentable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another biased article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: another biased article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: another biased article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well this is interesting
Not sure how I feel about this.
John - inventor of the patent in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]