Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: Catwell
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 549 views
  • Likes 0 likes
  • Comments 4 comments
Related
Recommended

Supreme Court mulls decision on software patenting

Catwell

image

U.S. Supreme Court building... (via USGOV & wiki)

 

When it comes to software patents, the waters are pretty murky and there’s an obscure line between what can and cannot be patented. The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) has defined a software patent as a ‘patent on any performance of a computer realized by means of a computer program’, however there is no legal definition currently on the law books. In the US, current patent laws regarding software excludes ‘abstract ideas’, natural phenomena and laws of nature, which has been used in the past to refuse a few of those software patents.

 

In an effort to address the issue of patented subject matter, or lack thereof, the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case brought about by Alice Corporation Pty Ltd against CLS Bank International. Alice currently holds a number of patents for their computer system that implements financial transaction invented back in the 90’s, which they claim were violated by CLS Bank. CLS claims that four of those patents are invalid and several lower courts have favored them regarding those patents, however some, including some tech giants such as Google, Hulu and YouTube along with the Electronic Frontier Foundation found those judgments to be lacking due to the vague interpretation of current patent laws.

 

Those entities claim that the previous judgments were ambiguous at best with no clear terms for their basis, which would leave lower courts with no clear way of handling software patent cases, especially when it comes to ‘software patent trolls’ (companies who own the patents solely for suing other companies looking to expand on those patents). Hopefully the Supreme Court can come to an agreement over abstract ideas and finally layout specific guidelines regarding software patents so that companies can keep their property safe and secure without the need for frivolous litigation that would surely follow after being infringed upon.

 

C

See more news at:

http://twitter.com/Cabe_Atwell

  • If you have an idea to share Share it with others for the joy.
    If you think it is worth protecting it from bad people then protect it for the joy.

    If you think money is good then share it for and protect it for the joy.

    image

  • in reply to Catwell

    I like your idea.

    If someone unintendedly violates a patent, there should be a set fee, like 1 USD per item sold and a negotiated license after that.

    If we make the fine too big, then we would paralyze development for fear of losing more money than you might gain from your inspiration.

    There should be an ability to send your design to the US patent office to see if it violates any approved patents and identify patent pending issues for the inventor to explore.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to DAB

    I have to agree.

     

    I would like a a way to stop people from using products anyone creates. I think the suing for large amounts of money is not justified in any way.

    If someone inadvertently infringes on a patent, perhaps a profit sharing resolution is the best procedure.

     

    C

  • I do like the idea that only those people who are actively implementing a patent should be the ones to file suit against anyone else infringing upon their rights.

     

    I do not like those companies who are just staffed with lawyers impeding active implementation of ideas.

    To me it hampers progress and creates needles litigation.  We do not need anymore litigation.  The Patent Laws were created to protect the initial intellectual property rights of inventers.

    I think it should be limited to that venue myself.

     

    DAB