Prometheus bound: An important precedent for the next software patent case (opensource.com) [LWN.net]

Red Hat's assistant general counsel Rob Tiller writes about the implications of a recent US Supreme Court decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. [PDF]. He looks at the possible impact on software patent decisions down the road. "It also seems noteworthy that the Mayo Court outlined a balanced view of the patent system that took account of the risks it can pose for innovation. It wrote, 'Patent protection is, after all, a two-edged sword. On the one hand, the promise of exclusive rights provides monetary incentives that lead to creation, invention, and discovery. On the other hand, that very exclusivity can impede the flow of information that might permit, indeed spur, invention, by, for example, raising the price of using the patented ideas once created, requiring potential users to conduct costly and time-consuming searches of existing patents and pending patent applications, and requiring the negotiation of complex licensing arrangements.'"

(Log in to post comments)

"when viewed as a whole"

Posted Mar 23, 2012 18:16 UTC (Fri) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link]

One of the interesting statements in the decision that makes any argument against software patents just based on mathematics alone is defective is that (emphasis added):

To put the matter more succinctly, the claims inform a relevant audience about certain laws of nature; any additional steps consist of well understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community; and those steps, when viewed as a whole, add nothing significant beyond the sum of their parts taken separately.

Consequently this still allows software and other similar patents that involve well known rules. But also makes it harder since the only enforceable component of these steps is only when the steps combined and that probably makes such patents worthless.

"when viewed as a whole"

Posted Mar 27, 2012 8:40 UTC (Tue) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]

> Consequently this still allows software and other similar patents that
> involve well known rules.

Yes, however the patent law already disallows software patents completely, because it disallows patents on mathematics. I'm just wondering when the courts will catch up to science (and not propagating the equivalent of assuming "lightning is caused by angry gods" anymore).

and here come the lobbyists

Posted Mar 23, 2012 18:18 UTC (Fri) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link]

I give it about 6 months before some congress-critter introduces legislation to effectively overturn this and make “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” patentable. Heck, it would not surprise me at all if such legislation has been already introduced many times. This will just spur more lobbyists to get their "bought and paid for" congress-critters to support it. But I'm not a cynic - honest...

and here come the lobbyists

Posted Mar 24, 2012 17:35 UTC (Sat) by tbird20d (subscriber, #1901) [Link]

In general, the legislature does not directly govern what is patentable or not - this tends to just falls out of what the patent office approves and the courts either allow or not. Congress seems not to be involved. But I would like to hear if there is evidence otherwise. So please provide some references, if you have them, for involvement by Congress in this issue.

If I recall correctly, the last thing that congress did related to patents was the reform bill, which was a step in the right direction (although not enough) IMHO.