Comments on: Ten years later, court does mulligan and rejects “business process” patents

By: Eric Eldon

Eric Eldon — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 04:44:50 +0000

Bob, that was tough love right there. Your wish was my command:

http://venturebeat.com/2008/10/31/patent-lawyer...

By: mary

mary — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 01:59:41 +0000

I think the points are qualified enough to show that this decision isn't doing anything to even reduce the growing backlog of patent applications. I know that this argument skews the direction of the article but I would really like to hear more than laughing from a real lawyer. What have you “figured out” so far about this process Bob? I am out of the way and interested to learn more about the real process versus what I have been reading.

By: riazrizvi

riazrizvi — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:54:16 +0000

Michael

As a technology entrepreneur looking for clarity, for me Mayer's quote adds confusion. 'The patent system is intended to protect and promote advances in science and technology, not ideas about how to structure commercial transactions.'
The fundamental problem has been that on one hand the patent system does not protect abstract ideas (algorithms) but it wants to protect some processes, where often the meat is in the process logic (the algorithm). To separate a patentable process from an unpatentable abstract idea, the courts have sought to identify some anchor of tangibility. The ruling has reinforced this tangibility notion with (1) a particular machine, (2) a particular article. That is a step towards clarity.
Is Mayer distinguishing commercial from scientific/technical applications? Are not scientific/technical applications a superset, encompassing commercial applications?

Riaz

By: Eric Eldon

Eric Eldon — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:26:39 +0000

Woah, Bob. Read the article again. I had qualified myself on the points you mentioned.

By: Michael Kassing

Michael Kassing — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:16:43 +0000

Bob,

You are correct that the court does not reconsider State Street but I think you can get where all of this may be going:

MAYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

The en banc order in this case asked: “Whether it is appropriate to reconsider State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999), in this case and, if so, whether those cases should be overruled in any respect?” I would answer that question with an emphatic “yes.” The patent system is intended to protect and promote advances in science and technology, not ideas about how to structure commercial transactions. Claim 1 of the application of Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw (“Bilski”) is not eligible for patent protection because it is directed to a method of conducting business. Affording patent protection to business methods lacks constitutional and statutory support, serves to hinder rather than promote innovation and usurps that which rightfully belongs in the public domain. State Street and AT&T should be overruled.

Oh, and by the way Bob, your an ass.
("It is just this sort of drivel that makes me laugh whenever I read a non-lawyer opine on legal decisions.")

Michael

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:24:54 +0000

Will you mainstream journalists please talk to a patent professionals before you publish this rubbish. The decision did not, and I repeat did not, invalidate business method patents. It did not overturn State Street which very specifically said that business methods are not excluded from patent protection. It is just this sort of drivel that makes me laugh whenever I read a non-lawyer opine on legal decisions. Get out of the way, let us figure out what this really means and stop riling the masses.

By: Michael Kassing

Michael Kassing — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 06:57:36 +0000

Crap! Huge!
This opens the landscape and REALLY devalues startups that try and sell their "unfair advantage" as patent related.

Ought to be a Fun year!!!

Michael Kassing
MarkTend.com

By: Jeff Helfand

Jeff Helfand — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 06:30:17 +0000

Do you think this could effect Amazon's “one click” patent? I would argue that “one click” is a process and not a technology and I can remember myself and my e commerce industry peers being in disbelief when it was granted.