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.'"
Cool ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this also cover patenting genes too?
Because I've never understood how you can patent a gene someone already had.
nothing and everything's a law of nature (Score:2, Interesting)
Whether we decide something to be a law of nature or a law of man developing as part of nature is a matter of drawing an arbitrary line.
This is why all notions of property are arbitrary.
Swinging Sideways Review? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this mean we can finally get a review for the patent on swinging sideways on a swing [slashdot.org]? The patent in question does not merely add "apply it" to suspended mass behavior -- it adds "apply it, but sideways."
Re:Cool ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Which would be very interesting when applying it to plant species. I'm betting Monsanto might have an issue or two with that.
Re:Cool ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Lets say I spend billions of dollars on a bactera that I can put in glass container that will light up like a 100 watt bulb while feeding it C02, I would want to patent those genes that I created so I can make profit off of bacteria lightbulbs. However if you just found the genes that cured cancer that some people had, and giving others with cancer that gene, I don't think you should be able to patent something you discovered but didn't create.
Math and software patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Math is the first thing I thought of when I read the headline. Math!
How many software patents are simply applied math?
We may have found a slippery slope that works in our favor for once.
I CHANNEL FIREBALL YOUR IDEA FOR 20 (Score:4, Interesting)
With more than a little irony, I'd like to mention that 'tapping' cards was patented by WoTC already: Tap (gaming) [wikipedia.org]
Patents: Advancing the state of the American technology one red mana at a time..