Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 19th Jun 2014 23:59 UTC

The US Supreme Court has made it ever so slightly harder to patent software.

The patent claimed a method of hedging against counter-party risk, which is a fancy word for the risk that you make a deal with someone and later he doesn't uphold his end of the bargain. The Supreme Court unanimously held that you can't patent an abstract concept like this merely by stating that the hedging should be done on a computer. This kind of abstract patent is depressingly common in the software industry, and the CLS ruling will cause lower courts to take a harder look at them.

It's a small victory, but hey, I take whatever I can. Sadly, the SCOTUS also states that "many computer-implemented claims" are still eligible for patent protection, without actually explaining which claims. So, while appending "on a computer" to an obvious abstract concept does not make it patentable, the actual concept of patenting software is still very much allowed.

Even if the SCOTUS had completely abolished software patents, however, we still would have to deal with them for more than a decade - existing software patents would not magically vanish, and would still require lengthy and expensive court cases to be invalidated. Something bullies like Microsoft and Apple can afford easily, while many others cannot.

Sorry for not putting a smile on your face, but reality is reality. Sadly.

Permalink for comment 591018
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Well ...
by CaptainN- on Fri 20th Jun 2014 15:08 UTC in reply to "Well ..."
Member since:

Software is written, so copyright applies. People who write software should be called software writers, instead of engineers - that alone would clear up a lot of this mess. The dynamics of writing software are much more like writing a book than building a bridge.

Also, patents in general suck, even for physical things. It was always just a gambit - an trick meant to promote the power of corporate owners (economic royalists), and dressed up in some inventor protection propaganda. Patents were never meant to protect individual inventor's rights, and they never have.

Reply Parent Score: 1