[Steven W]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argume ... 8_869d.pdf

Those of you needing background might find Wikipedia's entry and it references helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp ... ernational

Why should you be concerned with this? Well, I think many hope this would result in guidance being issued from the Supreme Court of the United States regarding what is and is not patentable, particularly regarding software. Given the inordinate number of cases filed in the U.S and elsewhere over patents and especially by non-practicing entities (think patent trolls), it's not terribly difficult to see why many think that clearing up ambiguities would be a net positive.

I feel the need to preface the rest of this post by stating that generally, one should careful not to read too much into the questions asked by or statements made by judges, particularly in appeals cases. With that said, the Supreme Court does have tendency to decide cases without broadening their decision to apply to more general issues. After all it's really up to the legislative branch of our government to make laws.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... 5X20140331

Although some of the nine justices signaled a willingness to go further and provide new guidance to lower courts that would describe exactly what types of computer-implemented inventions were patent eligible, others suggested there was no need for so broad a ruling. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

I'd guess the latter group will win out, but one never knows.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014 ... -king-tut/

Their skepticism toward Alice's patent doesn't really say much about how this case could affect the overall landscape, however. CLS Bank's lawyer, Mark Perry, described Alice's patents as outlining a system that comes down to "debit, credit, and pay." Killing off the patent could be done cleanly and easily within the already existing rules under the Bilski case, he said.

You should be aware of Bilski v. Kappos, for a deeper understanding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos

I'm going to close out here with a couple of links to Groklaw. I've mentioned before that I have an extremely positive view of the site and dearly miss it.

First, the response sent to The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for their request for suggested topics for discussion in the future by the Software Partnership:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor ... 4152416723

Second, an article written by someone using the moniker PolR titled 'What Does "Software Is Mathematics" Mean? Part 1 - Software Is Manipulation of Symbols':

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php ... 3192858600

I think this article provides some food for thought!

[!]

A lot to chew on. Personally, I find the name "Alice corp." tad creepy.

[Steven W]

Hehe. I always think of Alice in Wonderland, which invariably leads to:



Another article over at Groklaw:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor ... 5102810176

The notion that programming a computer makes a new machine is factually erroneous. There are several ways of showing this. This outline of the argument mentions one of them. The process by which a computer operates is the instruction cycle. It does not change when the computer is programmed. Contrary to what WMS Gaming states, loading the instructions in memory does not cause electrical paths to be established within the computer. The process by which the computer operates remains the same instruction cycle no matter how the computer is programmed.

I think those with even a slight clue as to how a computer really operates know that the point PJ is trying to make is correct. Someday, somewhere, somebody in the world is going to wake up and tell the world to shove their software patents where the Sun doesn't shine.

[Steven W]

If anyone does read that last article at Groklaw, that I personally feel as though the first amendment argument is a bit of stretch, but the larger point is dead-on.

[Steven W]

I'm looking over the transcript. A few thoughts:

Mr. Phillips response to Justice Breyer's inquiry about how this patent is not simply the concept of "solvency" implemented on a computer (computer says stop before account is overdrawn):

MR. PHILLIPS: And ­­-- and look, there's no -- ­­ I'll be the first one to ­­ to confess that trying to use language to describe these things is not all that easy. But the way I think you can meaningfully look at this is to say that this is not simply something that was a fundamental truth, this is not something that simply says use a computer. It's not simply something that says maintain solvency. It -- ­­ it operates in a much more specific and concrete environment where you're dealing with a problem that's been in existence since the 1970s, a solution in the 1990s, that CLS itself acknowledges needed a solution and came forward with their own solution that looks a lot like ours.

It's hard to describe in words? Wow. That's what you have to say when standing before the Supreme Court? Who cares how long the problem existed? He goes on later:

Your abacus is great if you happen to be waiting for the pyramids to be finished or waiting for the gold to move in and out, but it doesn't help with you an abacus if you're dealing with literally thousands of transactions simultaneously going on in different countries at different points in time.

Okay, so a networked computer allows you to do more of it faster. Who'd thunk it?

He does later tell the Justices to refer to a flow chart. Well, if you can make a flow chart, how hard would it be to implement an algorithm? Heh, it turns out that Charles Duan, an attorney at Public Knowledge, took a look at one claim of one of the patents in question:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014 ... nt-trolls/

The Alice patents are covered in complicated-sounding language about computers, but critics like Duan see the complex language as little more than smoke and mirrors. The bloated nature of the patents is cleverly addressed in the amicus brief filed by Public Knowledge and the Application Developers Alliance, written by Duan, which distills the "very simple, basic idea" that Alice hid "beneath a veneer of technical language." Duan took the most broadly accepted claim in Alice's batch of patents, claim 26 of US Patent No. 7,725,375, and wrote a computer program that satisfies all the instructions of the 200-word claim. It is seven lines long:

Code: Select all

    10 LET account1 = 200.00

    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

200 words to describe that? I put the question before you in my first post; Why should you care about this? If Mr. Duan's example doesn't clarify the answer I don't know what will.

[Steven W]

Now I'm looking over the amicus brief filed by Public Knowledge and the Application Developers Alliance. It is available thanks to the American Bar Association:

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

I'm going to include a bit of it:

App developers are both central to innovation and vulnerable to the patent laws that surround innovation. By innovating rapidly and cheaply, app developers represent an increasingly robust force in the economy. The app economy is now globally valued at over $53 billion and has created approximately 466,000 jobs in the United States since 2007. But many app developers, including ADA members, are struggling as a result of abusive patent assertion, especially that originating from patent assertion entities (PAEs). Such entities often assert overly broad patents, propounding unfounded infringement allegations and aggressive litigation threats, which deeply chill innovation.

Inconsistency and uncertainty in areas of patent law, such as subject matter eligibility, are enabling factors in PAE litigation, as they enable aggressive patent assertors to take improper, overbroad positions. E.g., Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, 653 F.3d 1314, 1326-28 (Fed. Cir. 2011). This forces many app developers to conclude that innovation is not worth the expensive baggage of defending against such claims, resulting in delays to and deficiencies in app development and overall innovation. thus, ADA and its members have a strong interest in this Court providing clarity in this area of patent law.

Nicely put.

In the opinion of the ADA and Public Knowledge, some judges were bamboozled by the "language of the claims and the patent". You remember those 200 words to describe what Mr. Duan implemented in 7 lines of code.

Certain judges below were misled by the language of the claims and the patent. Judge Rader believed that Claim 26 involved "a complex problem" that could only be solved with a specialized system with "at least four separate structural components." CLS Bank, 717...

F.3d at 1307. He reviewed the "at least thirty two figures which provide detailed algorithms" to conclude that "[l]abeling this system claim an 'abstract concept' wrenches all meaning from those words." Id. at 1309. Judge Moore likewise found a similarly-worded claim "limited to one that is configured to perform certain functions in a particular fashion" and, based on one of the flowcharts, suggested that the claims demanded a dizzyingly long and complex algorithm. Id. at 1318. And Judge Linn concluded that, while they may be based on an abstract idea,"the claims here are directed to very specific ways of doing that." Id. at 1741.

The common thread among all of these opinions is an assumption that, given the heavy use of technical language in the specification and claims, only a specific,
complex, technical computer program could infringe the patents. As the seven-line computer program on the previous page demonstrates, this assumption was in error.

Some argue that we need more techies/geeks in courtrooms and perhaps at the USPTO. Can you see why?

[!]

You have done an excellent follow up and commentary on these!

[Steven W]

Not directly related to Alice, but a patent troll and who's sponsoring it:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/ ... R020140411

Patent buyer Intellectual Ventures has persuaded Microsoft and Sony to invest in its latest acquisition fund while Apple and Intel, which invested with IV previously, declined to participate, according to people briefed on the fundraising

Those who can't innovate litigate. Those who can't innovate and don't wanna be seen as uncool litigate by proxy.