Public Knowledge Deflates Another Dubious Software Patent By Reducing It To Seven Lines Of BASIC
from the GOTO-patent-invalidation dept
Public Knowledge is back at it, carving holes in dubious software patent claims by distilling supposedly "complex" ideas into a minimal amount of code. Late last year, Public Knowledge filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit involving Ultramercial, whose disputed patent basically involved appending "on the internet" to a very basic idea.
In that case, "watching a video on the internet" had been turned into a 349-word, 11-step process that convinced the patent reviewer the process was somehow protectable. Charles Duan of Public Knowledge took that word salad and converted it into 16 lines of code, poking rather large holes in Ultramercial's inflated description.
Duan has done it again. In an amicus brief filed on behalf of CLS Bank, Public Knowledge explains that Alice Corp.'s patent claims cover a very general and obvious abstract idea: the exchange of funds via a third party.
Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International concerns a group of patents on third-party escrow, an age-old technique where two people exchange money through a third party. It’s what most people use to buy a house. It’s PayPal.So, how did Alice Corp. get this patent? By adding a few words to the idea: "done by a computer." Of course, to get protection for an abstract (and simple) idea, you have to use considerably more words than that. Here's the description, which makes it sound much more impressive than it actually is.
Obviously, no one can get a patent on escrow. Abstract ideas (like escrow) can’t be patented. Why not? Because ideas are the starting point for every new business, technology, and product. Patents on ideas would squash innovation. As the Supreme Court explained in another recent case, ideas are the “basic tools of scientific and technological work,” and a patent on an idea “might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.”
a computer, coupled to said data storage unit and said communications controller, that is configured to…Here's Charles Duan's reduction of that process, in BASIC no less:
(b) electronically adjust said first account and said third account in order to effect an exchange obligation arising from said transaction between said first party and said second party after ensuring that said first party and/or said second party have adequate value in said first account and/or said third account, respectively.
10 LET account1 = 200.00Now, extremely efficient code isn't always the sign of a simple process, but patenting an age-old abstract idea like escrow is, first of all, something that (theoretically) isn't allowed by our patent process. Adding "with a computer" doesn't suddenly turn a non-patentable idea into protectable IP… or at least it shouldn't. But as Ultramercial proved, abstract ideas can and do become prime patent troll properties. As Anna Sallstrom of Public Knowledge notes, granting dressed-up ideas patent protection is nothing more than "trading progress for abstract patents." Hopefully, the Supreme Court will see Alice Corp.'s claims for what they are: escrow + a computer.
20 LET account3 = 300.00
30 INPUT “Value to exchange for transaction”; exchange
40 IF account1 < exchange THEN PRINT “Inadequate value”: STOP
50 account1 = account1 – exchange
60 account3 = account3 + exchange
70 PRINT “Instruction to 1st institution: adjust 2nd account by ”; -exchange
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: basic, public knowledge, software patent
Companies: ultramercial
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Copyright over the whole may be justified, but not over the individual functions.
However, if you include comments, sure why not. Can live without those or write my own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That this is acceptable leads me to believe that the copyright office does just as you suggest -- copyright the whole, but not a few specific lines or functions.
I never actually tested this, though. Although my software has been pirated plenty, I've never felt it prudent or cost-effective to sue anyone about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Generally in tech companies it is the executives and upper management (and obviously the legal department) that are up in arms about piracy. Most of the people who actually make the stuff are far less concerned.
To restate something I've said before, of all the programmers I know and work with that I know their personal position on piracy of, only a single one is both en elite programmer and significantly concerned about piracy (and you can bet I was surprised when I learned his position).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Software can not add accuracy. Your output is, at best, as good as your input. Your results are more often than not, less accurate due to errors in logic, conversion, translation or coding. Entropy is increased. GIGO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
True, but I suspect what the commenter actually means is that software can make implementing processes more accurate than they would be if the processes were performed manually.
In that sense, software (or automation of any sort) can add accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately in the US at least it's covered by both. Can't figure out why anyone thinks that's a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
add 2 lines
90 GOTO 80
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The jackass didn't have the third party collect anything for processing the transaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
account1TotTrans++;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]