“Bilksi v. Kappos” Brings Us Closer to Patenting Abstract Ideas

A fascinating discussion with regard to Bilski v. Kappos, here:

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.1919/pub_detail.asp

I have heard other opinion close to this: we seem to be getting closer to allowing the patenting of abstract ideas.  That is, the Supreme Court is hesitant about categorically ruling out any kind patent, including “pure” business methods, in fear that to do so would preclude future technologies which we haven’t even dreamed about yet.

The Bilski decision strengthened the patentability of software.

Advertisements

Jefferson on the “Embarrassment” of Patents

Thomas Jefferson, making a case for the “embarrassment” of patents,

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.

-Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Isaac McPherson, 13 August 1813

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html

Is “Bilski v. Kappos” the Beginning of the End for Patents?

Listen to, or read the Supreme Court’s fascinating oral arguments for Bilski v. Kappos.  I can’t help but think: given the difficulty in defining “machine” or “transformation”, does this portend a day when patents are no longer properly definable?  Is the distinction between “abstract idea” and “technology” ultimately arbitrary?

http://www.717madisonplace.com/?p=3139

If you care at all about software patents and intellectual property, you really should pay attention to this case.  (If you are an I/T architect, I strongly suggest you do.)

In the end the Supreme Court said that the machine-or-transformation test was not the only test which determines patent eligibility and that all aspects of the patent must be considered.  Though not producing of definite rules, this opinion leaves open the possibility for patenting pure software algorithms.  To not do so, the Supreme Court reasoned, might prevent unknown future technologies of importance from being patented.  (The ambiguity is meant to error on the side of the unknown.)

Listen to, or read the discussion for yourself.