Supreme Court Limits Patents Based On Laws of Nature 173
New submitter sed quid in infernos writes "The Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion yesterday holding that 'to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, a patent must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words "apply it."' The Court invalidated a patent on the process of adjusting medication dosage based on the levels of specific metabolites in the patient's blood. The opinion sets forth a process for determining patent eligibility for patent claims that include a law of nature. The court wrote that the "additional features" that show an application of the law must "provide practical assurance that the [claimed] process is more than a drafting effort." This language suggests that the burden will be on the patentee to prove that its limitations are more than patent attorney tricks.'"
Hrm... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have some pretty mixed feelings about this. While it's true that there are some bad patents in this vein, I don't know if I'd consider them even a substantial portion of it. The trouble is that just because something is a law of nature doesn't make it 'obvious', and actually discovering that law can take a considerable amount of research. For example: every chemical process ever invented. Forget patenting extractive distillation methods. Hell, you could look at the lead chamber process as unpatentable because lead's role in the process (despite being a hugely important innovation) follows from simple natural laws.
Now, I'm really glad to see the supreme court start to take a more critical approach to IP, but unless there's something I'm missing here this decision could really have some bad side effects.
Re:Hrm... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you mean there could be "bad side effects" for companies whose business model is based on milking patents as long as possible rather than continually trying to out-innovate their competition, I'm sure you're right.
Re:Cool ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad for Monsanto. Perhaps a business model relying on the patenting of things that shouldn't be patentable was a dodgy idea to start with?
Re:Hrm... (Score:5, Insightful)
The trouble is that just because something is a law of nature doesn't make it 'obvious', and actually discovering that law can take a considerable amount of research.
So? People do a considerable amount of research and discover interesting things all the time. Why does that mean there should be some complicated government system dictating what everyone else can do with that knowledge even if they independently figure out the same thing?
How does an artificial monopoly on facts of nature benefit society? If you just want to give people money for research, why not just do it directly instead of this insanely complex system?
Re:Patent (Score:5, Insightful)
So I can't patent my method of not falling off the Earth through application of gravity?
Alas, you can. This just means it won't hold up in court, not that you can't patent it, threaten other people, incur huge legal costs and tie things up for years making a nuisance of yourself until the money from your investors runs out, at which point you just declare bankruptcy, dissolve the corp that takes all the blame and walk away from the mess with the income you earned during the time.
Re:patenting discoveries? (Score:4, Insightful)
Obtaining a patent on a gene (not the process used to find the gene)
is akin to getting a patent on finding a new animal species, finding buried city or dinosaur.
I thought you could not patent facts?
Re:Cool ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I sort of think of it the same way as if cigarette companies came up with a pill that gave you the ability to smoke without ever getting cancer. In terms of profit they'd do better to give away the pills and sell more cigarettes.
Re:Cool ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Curious that you left out Apple. After all, they took an "unlock" slider, which already existed in physical form on mobile phones and other devices, and patented the idea of putting that "on screen". I'm not saying that other companies would not or have not applied for similar patents, but Apple has crowned itself the king of obvious patents with its aggressive pursuit of that one.
Re:Cool ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why the hell did they choose to test with penicillin immunity? Couldn't they have just altered the color response of the plant or something?
Re:Cool ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:nothing and everything's a law of nature (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why all notions of property are arbitrary.
Could you give me my wallet, there in your pocket?
Will you do the same for me later? If so, yes, you may have the wallet in my pocket.
Just because you and I currently have an agreed on notion of property which says that the wallet in my pocket is mine doesn't mean we can't re-negotiate it right now, if it suits us both. If anyone could take my stuff at any time I might not have any food to eat at the end of the day. But if I can take anyone else's stuff too (without them minding), then that's not a problem any more.
I still prefer our current model (the wallet in my pants is mine) because I don't know who you are and don't trust you to support me when I need it, but I do share with the people I trust. The concept of property is not a fundamental trait of the universe. It is something some animals develop to optimize resource management. It is something which could always be improved. Its boundaries are negotiable and arbitrary.