10 Judges, 135 Pages Of Ruling About Software Patents... And Zero Clarification
from the wtf? dept
Okay, we know that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has quite the reputation for mucking up rulings concerning patents over the years. In fact, there's a strong argument to be made that CAFC is a key reason that our patent system is so screwed up today. So, leave it to CAFC to issue one of the most bizarre and useless rulings ever concerning software patents. The specific case is CLS Bank v. Alice Corp, and we had noted this was a chance for CAFC to actually fix the software patents problem, though the oral hearings suggested a very conflicted court, and that's certainly what came out in the ruling. Or, rather, I should say: rulings.The document is 135 pages... but the only part that actually matters is one single paragraph that was issued "per curiam" (i.e., by the whole court, but without anyone being named):
Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An equally divided court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under that statute.Basically, a majority of the court agreed with the district court that the "invention" in the patent in question -- about using a computer to basically do "shadow transactions" to net out a deal to make sure that all funds are available -- was patent ineligible subject matter. This is what the district court had found, saying that it was just an "abstract idea." The original CAFC appeal had overturned that, saying that it was patentable subject matter. This was a rehearing "en banc" with 10 CAFC judges. Notice that 10 is an even number. Meaning, you could have a split court. Or, you could have a court in total disarray, which is what came out here. Even though they (mostly) agreed that the specific claims here are not eligible for a patent, the court disagreed on why or how or what color the sky is, basically.
There are seven (count 'em) different opinions issued in the document, none of them meaning anything, because none of them -- other than that one paragraph above, have more than the majority in agreement.
Even where they agree, they disagree, and make something of a mockery of the whole system. Dennis Crouch at Patently-O summarizes it thusly:
All of the judges recognized that the test for patent eligibility under section 101 should be “a consistent, cohesive, and accessible approach” that provides “guidance and predictability for patent applicants and examiners, litigants, and the courts.” However, the judges hotly disagree as to the pathway that will lead to that result.That's kind of funny (or ridiculously distressing) when you think about it. The court is saying we need a clear and consistent approach to figuring out what is patentable, and the court feels that it needs to give very clear guidance to everyone about it... and then goes on to absolutely disagree on every key point within that. The end result is that while they agree we need consistent, cohesive and accessible guidance, they fail to offer any, and actually do the opposite, providing a huge mess.
Five of the judges did make a fairly interesting ruling, which would greatly limit software patents. It notes that:
... simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.... At its most basic, a computer is just a calculator capable of performing mental steps faster than a human could. Unless the claims require a computer to perform operations that are not merely accelerated calculations, a computer does not itself confer patent eligibility. In short, the requirement for computer participation in these claims fails to supply an “inventive concept” that represents a nontrivial, nonconventional human contribution or materially narrows the claims relative to the abstract idea they embrace.Basically, just adding "on a computer" shouldn't make a general idea patentable. That's good. If only they could have found a sixth judge to support it. Instead, you get the following table of contents:
Opinion for the court filed PER CURIAM.And, basically, all of this means nothing. It doesn't help to wipe out or clarify software patents at all. It doesn't really help anyone. It probably doesn't make anyone on any side of this issue happy. It just leads to more confusion.
Concurring opinion filed by LOURIE, Circuit Judge, in which DYK, PROST, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges, join.
Concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part opinion filed by RADER, Chief Judge, LINN, MOORE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges, as to all but part VI of that opinion. RADER, Chief Judge, and MOORE, Circuit Judge, as to part VI of that opinion.
Dissenting-in-part opinion filed by MOORE, Circuit Judge, in which RADER, Chief Judge, and LINN and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges, join.
Concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part opinion filed by NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
Dissenting opinion filed by LINN and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
Additional reflections filed by RADER, Chief Judge.
However, as Julie Samuels at the EFF notes, hopefully this will help make it clear to the Supreme Court that it finally needs to issue a clear ruling on software patents, after completely punting the last time it had a chance.
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: cafc, patents, software patents, supreme court
Companies: alice corp., cls bank
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What the hell?
Did we appoint Tyler Durden to the CAFC when no one was looking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, it's NO WORSE! Lower your hopes toward reality, Mike.
BTW: should be NO software patents; all patents should require working physical models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, it's NO WORSE! Lower your hopes toward reality, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey, it's NO WORSE! Lower your hopes toward reality, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These are not easy cases, as the court's opinion ably demonstrates. By citing Ms. Samuels at the EFF, and by association the EFF as an organization, you seem intent on relying upon a group that is "not the brightest bulb in the lamp" in matters pertaining to patent law. I daresay, even your stable of unidentified experts will agree that these cases to not admit to an easy answer and a bright line test akin to a litmus test.
Feel free to express outrage. Feel free to resort to name-calling, questioning my motives, challenging my credentials and expertise, etc. No matter what approach, if any, you may choose to employ should you respond, it cannot be denied that complex questions do not lend themselves to simplistic answers. This case is not the first time, and will certainly not be the last. Such is life...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contant Bickering????
If patents were actually issued in the spirit of patents (and advancement), one would hope that maybe a couple would be issued each decade. This being based on the obvious actuality of most advancement is incremental and a merge of many ideas.
As lawyers and politicians are lower than most (if not all) used care salesmen, they (the lawyers and politicians) should be deferring to every one else.
I had considered rewriting the previous message as:
"Your constant bickering about Techdirt and the supporters of fixing the patent system, including your continual denigration of their efforts in matters that are in every way amenable to your simplistic notions concerning subject matter eligibility under our Patents laws, is tiresome at best, and an exhibit of arrogance at worst."
but I thought it best to make the other comments instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contant Bickering????
But, for every John Steele, or Charles Carrion, or Joseph Rakofsky, there are as many as one, to one and a half laywers who aren't trying to figure out how to gain cosmic power through bathing in the blood of virgins. Well, you know, yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contant Bickering????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Contant Bickering????
But, most of the lawyers I've met and interacted with have been genuinely decent people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyone who thinks that is clearly an idiot.
I mean that in the most offensive way possible, because you deserve it. Having dealt with Julie and other patent experts for quite some time, anyone who believes that she doesn't know this stuff, or that EFF is "not the brightest bulb in the lamp" concerning patent matters has no clue what they're talking about and is speaking out of ignorance, jealousy, spite or rage. Which one is it?
I know, I know, you're a big time patent lawyer, and this case threatens your very being. So you resort to the worst of the worst when confronted with reality: you lash out at those who are smarter than you.
Oh well. Too bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
2. Personal attacks at anyone who disagrees with him? Check.
3. Dodges talking about the AC's point on the merits as to how this stuff isn't simple? Check.
4. Totally arrogant and condescending? Check.
A perfect score!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I for one always interested on the "dimmest bulb in the whole universe"'s opinions and critics on a complex subject cos I found them usually sincere and where insights lie, not from the "omnipotent god-like" scientists/experts (the insights, I mean).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think these decisions more than anything show that the issue is complex, and to come down absolutely on one side (as EFF generally does) is perhaps to miss some of the subtle nature of the problem. It may seem very obvious to you and them, but it's not obvious to the judges nor is it obvious to most of the rest of us.
What is scary to think is that the homeless guy walking through the park mumbling to himself about the black helicopters following is absolutely certain he is right too. he doesn't realize that perhaps they are after a large number of people, and not just himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, none of them, though I am certain you wish it was not so.
The outcome of this case threatens my very being not in the slightest as I long ago moved on to other matters involving a broad spectrum of law. Nevertheless, I am a dedicated "student" of domestic and international patent law and devote considerable time and effort to remain current as it ebbs and flows in order to effectively consult with other counsel in all manner of issues affecting their clients.
I am sure Ms. Samuels is a nice person, and that the EFF is honest in the pursuit of its "mission statement". This alone, however, does not translate into a fundamental and extensive knowledge of all aspects, pro and con, associated with patent law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and why does IP law need to be so insanely complicated that you need an army of lawyers to still not have a good understanding of it?
See, you argue against yourself. The OP is about the lack of clarity in the law and how, after all this so far (135 or whatever pages and whatever court trials) no one still understands the law. and here you are agreeing, the law is still too complicated and ambiguous for the EFF or Techdirt or you or anyone to understand. Good job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You could just admit that you disagree (though tellingly you didn't even make a single substantive comment on their analysis -- you just went straight for the insult) but no you have to claim they're stupid.
Over the past few years I've seen your daily comments here and have dealt with them many times. You have no business insulting them because you are consistently wrong, uninformed, and worse when called on it and proven wrong you pretend you never said what you said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While I do follow work being done by the EFF and other similar groups (e.g., PK and KEI), much of their work reflects a singular mindset that adds little, if anything, to substantive and objective discussions. Hence, I tend towards those willing to engage in vigorous pro/con discussions that do not reflect advocacy for a particular point of view. This is one reason, for example, why I only infrequently review IPWatchdog and similar sites. Much the same can be said of journal articles where the authors have in the past consistently presented a one sided view of relevant issues.
Interestingly, the former groups almost invariably disagree with my understanding of patent law, whereas the latter raise and discuss issues that are particularly thought provoking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know what they say about people who make assumptions?
Yeah. That.
You're completely wrong again. It happens a lot. You should stop making stupid assumptions because it only reflects poorly on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me put this another way. TD is clearly an advocacy site, and as such differs little from advocacy groups such as the EFF.
If one is seeking objective information from which to formulate their own opinion, then they would best be served by looking elsewhere where such information resides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're so funny. You've been commenting on this site for years, with a clear bias and an EXCEPTIONALLY clear agenda. You're just as much of an "advocate" as I am.
And, frankly, I'm thrilled to be compared to the EFF -- who you criticized earlier. If I've accomplished in my life 1% of what the EFF does in a year, then I've done something amazing.
If one is seeking objective information from which to formulate their own opinion, then they would best be served by looking elsewhere where such information resides.
I, as well as the EFF, are pretty good about including as many original sources as possible. We are big believers in letting people decide for themselves.
You, on the other hand, regularly lie, distort and mislead. And when called on it, you double down with more lies. Plus, you're (now) anonymous (despite naming yourself on other sites where your "friends" write).
You've never provided objective information here. You have a clear agenda and you weakly try to hide it by pretending that you're "merely here to provide some information" or whatever pedantic language choice you make that day.
No one is fooled by you.
Does the EFF have a bias? Absolutely. It's towards more freedom and what's best for the world. If you don't have that "bias" then you're a fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Using SOPA as but one example, I, and a very large number of others familiar with the proposed legislation, made note of many factual inaccuracies that were making the rounds during its pendency. I did not take a position on the wisdom or lack thereof, but only to address the contents of articles and commentary that I believed were not accurate, and thusly misleading to those largely unfamiliar with the substantive contents of the bill.
Even the question "Are patents and copyrights 'property' within the meaning of the 5th Amendment. This is a legal question, and one that has not been squarely presented to and decided by the Supreme Court. Sure, it has tapped danced around around the issue, issuing opinions with contradictory dicta, but never so stated as a court "holding", and it is holdings that form binding precedent.
Even in matters associated with specific patents, my only comments have been to the effect that one cannot simply take a look at a patent and immediately declare, without much more, that it is "bad" because it is manifestly "obvious". This by no reasonable means can be interpreted as stating an opinion that a specific patent is "not bad" and "not obvious". A fine distinction yes, but a definitive opinion most certainly not.
If urging caution in making an analysis makes me a "maximalist", "troll", "whatever", then I submit attaching these and other labels because of such comments are simply incorrect.
Discussing a matter of law without taking a position is hardly what I term "bias", and to say so I submit is a misstatement lacking merit.
On a more recent matter, even in Bowman v. Monsanto I do not recall ever stating definitively "Bowman will lose as Monsanto cleans it clock before the SCOTUS". You may wish to read the decision that just issued in anticipation of drafting a new article to present here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that you, Gene Quinn???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is that you, Gene Quinn???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're anonymous, you have no credentials (as far as I'm concerned). The people at the EFF are not anonymous and so they have credentials. See the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
only divide-by-zero left, Patent Attorneys
or at any rate, that's what I read in that - dividing by zero's the only thing that computers - like humans - can't do, so is not a trivial speed-up of operations, so is the only thing that could be legally patented ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The American people love lotteries.
The American people don't want to obey the law, and as often as not they punish the poor losers who do obey, and reward the people who flout it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Does this result in what some may consider an injustice? Of course it does, but then again this is true of any human endeavor, be it the law or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand why you are fighting so fiercely for this broken system, it's your pocketbook at play. You see these terrible misunderstandings over laws which probably shouldn't be in existence and see dollar signs, you see these corporations throwing around millions of dollars and want a piece of that as well. It's natural to you, I understand, I'm sure if you lived a hundred years earlier you would be selling snake oil or virility potions.
Laws are not subjective, that is why they are laws. If we cannot find even reasonable agreement in our own laws, what's the point of making them into law to begin with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And for the lawyers who will undoubtedly rush to defend the law as a matter of principle rather than by its merits in actually maintaining the orderly conduct of society, first tell me in what other area outside of art and law would you find such a divergent opinion from knowledgeable professionals to be acceptable? I doubt you would accept ten car mechanics or ten doctors giving you ten different opinions on the same problem, so why should we accept ten different opinions from ten federal judges on the same case? The inner workings of a car or the human body are discrete and definable. If laws are not discrete and definable in a manner that can give proper direction to even knowledgeable professionals, then they cannot govern society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's true that it is sad, but often the root cause of the problem is people who started out trying to pull the covers to their side of the bed before the read the laws, and are now trying to use the laws to justify their actions.
It's also not a simple area because IP and IP related jobs are a huge part of the US economy these days, and nobody wants to be the one who changed a law or issued a ruling that hurt that economy. It explains generally why laws like this have to be changed in the congress rather than through legal action, as the legal action often ends up creating more confusion. The court here pretty much ruled that it works either way, we can see both sides, and there is nothing clear cut in these areas in the law that we can rule on with full agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gallup Poll: “Americans Down on Congress, OK With Own Representative” (story by Elizabeth Mendes, Gallup, May 9, 2013)
The American people loves to bitch about the job Congress does —but when it comes time to do something about it— they won't act on the idea that their own Congressional representatives are the ones doing the job.
The disconnect is too big to ignore. The reasonable conclusion is that the American people collectively want Congress to pass laws so messed up that intelligent professionals can't agree on the meaning of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A 16% approval rating for congress but a 46% for their own rep suggests that they think that whoever they elected is just fine, but it's all the other idiots who are screwing it up. "It's not my fault, it's your fault!".
You can scroll up through the comments in this thread to see that at work here, with the argument about who's experts in the field are more right.
What it really boils down to is a lack of responsiblity. Nobody wants to think they are responsible for the problems, and only that they have all of the answers. Things would bet better except for "the other guy screwing it up!".
The anti-copyright types could do themselves a great service by stopping slamming whoever they feel is the opposition, and instead just moving forward with their non-copyright business models supporting the artists that create the stuff. Instead, they slam, bitch, moan, and complain, and don't move forward. What they are really trying to do is jam the opposition into using their unproven business models, rather than proving them clearly themselves.
Remember, the world would be right if the other guy wasn't screwing it up. It's how they work it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every, single, post. And it's been debunked, numerous times. You don't want to own up to it of course because your excessive use of copy + paste is much easier than trying to modify your argument to fit what has and hasn't been addressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American lawyer = Christian theologian
Only Christian theologians will assert that 1=3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have far more respect for a trained professional attempting to understand the laws of the universe than men of no scruples arguing about which fickle, contradictory edict should be used to control people's lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
font
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not What It Appears
First, the majority of judges agree that the presumption of validity applies to Section 101. See Lourie at 23, and Radar at 26. This means that a defendant can't kill a software patent on a motion to dismiss, and without facts (e.g., expert testimony).
Second, the majority of judges agree that the key question is "preemption": does the claim cover all practical applications of the idea. They agree that this comes down to a question of the scope of the claim relative to "practical" and "real world effects". The judges all look for "meaningful limitations". Where the judges disagree is how you do that analysis, on what counts as "meaningful."
Even Lourie (who found all the claims ineligible) requires that the claim "wholly preempt" all "practical uses" of the idea. I would argue that a defendant has to prove that it could not practice the abstract idea without infringing. The patentee need only show that its possible to do that, because there is some limitation in the claim that is not required to practice the "big idea." In general, given a broadly stated "abstract idea" any good engineer can show that there is some limitation in the claim that is not required to implement the abstract idea. In that case, the defendant loses.
Your quotation above that "generic computer automation" should kill lots of software patents is not correct. Most software patents are not mere computer automation of an existing idea practiced in real life. Certainly there are plenty, but they are the minority. They may be more visible because they are more likely to be contested and result in litigation, but that's a biased sample.
More fundamentally, the underlying logic of this view is at odds with the law and I would argue, common sense. It has never been the case that an invention is ineligible because it is "automation" or because it uses conventional mechanisms. It may be obvious, but it's still eligible for patenting. Indeed, caselaw going back over a 100 years, and the modern patent law, specifically allowed for inventions that were new "uses" of existing machines, which arguably covers the "mere" computerization of an existing process.
Further, this thinking is "biased" against computers for no apparent reason. More specifically: would you deny patent eligibility to someone who used conventional pulleys and gears and levers and springs etc. in a new way to lift a stone? No, you would say that qualified as eligible for a patent, and then decide whether it was obvious. If you would not discriminate against other types of "hardware" that can be reconfigured and repurposed, then you should not discriminate against computer hardware which is reconfigured and repurposed by software.
One of the hallmarks of our patent system is that it is technology agnostic: it does not dictate which technologies are a priori worthy of protecting and which are not. It lets in all comers and thus does not bias the path of technological innovation. Imagine if in the 1920s or so, the Supreme Court decided the inventions that used electricity were merely applying a "natural law" or "natural phenomena" and therefore no electrical device was eligible for patent protection? Maybe you would say that we'd be better off--but there is no evidence for that. Indeed, the historical record is that Edison, Westinghouse, and many others relied on patents in order obtain financing and maintain profits for further research and development.
For a detailed analysis of the CLS opinions see http://www.bilskiblog.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]