Supreme Court Orders Do-Over On Key Software Patents 167
Fluffeh writes "It seems that the U.S. Supreme Court has an itch it just can't scratch. A patent granted to the Ultramercial company covers the concept of allowing users to watch a pre-roll advertisement as an alternative to paying for premium content and the company is demanding fees from the likes of Hulu and YouTube. Another company called WildTangent, however, is challenging Ultramercial's 'invention' as merely an abstract idea not eligible for patent protection. Add to this a recent ruling by the Supreme Court restricting patents — albeit on medical diagnostic techniques — and you get into a bit of a pickle. The Supreme Court is now sending the Ultramercial case back to the lower courts for another round, which doesn't mean that the court disagrees with the original ruling, but rather that it thinks it is a patent case that is relevant to the situation and they want to re-examine it under this new light."
Patents that cover concepts? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is a new law.
The original constitution states "physical inventions".
If it subverts the original meaning that is grounds for the supreme court to throw it out. The second issue is math should not be patentable because they are laws of nature and not manmade. Computer algorithms are just this and a process is simply math. Laws of nature have been ruled not to be patentable as well in the past and I think your text from the America Invents act are clearly unconstitutional but I am no lawyer.
What I want to know is if laws of nature as unpatentable are a European idea or American or both? The grandparent is correct in that original patents were for physical inventions with a prototype already functional only. Not for an idea. Otherwise everyone would be quite wealthy or broke as nothing could be made without infringing on everyone else.
You can sue the government, right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Then we need people to sue the USPTO. I mean big, honking, megabucks style, at a bare minimum to get back their fees for defending against utter abominations like this ludicrous "invention".
Yes, I know that will come out of the public purse and into the pockets of - FSM help me - lawyers, but what other option is there?
Re:DVD trailers (Score:4, Interesting)
More like every DVD player that's been manufactured(1995 onward). It's the programming for user operation prohibition flag [wikipedia.org], inside the player, (rom/pc software), that prevents the skipping of the FBI warning/commercial previews prior to viewing the content.
Re:What else is there to say? (Score:2, Interesting)
Blame useless congress for patents and how asinine its become. When did the supreme court started having to do Congress job. Congress has become such a joke.
Re:You can sue the government, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms? (Score:4, Interesting)
The second issue is math should not be patentable because they are laws of nature and not manmade. Computer algorithms are just this and a process is simply math.
You're right, and that's why computer algorithms are not patentable by themselves. Instead, they must be explicitly tied to a machine or performed by a machine, because machines are not laws of nature, nor are they man-made.
Ah, I see you are one of those religious fundamentalists. Machines are far too complex to be man made! All those intricacies and complexities. They must be made by God. Amen brother!
On the 1st day God created computers. On the 0th day he rested. Then there was a recursive loop, a segfault and a buffer overflow, and that explains how things came to be. Hallelujah!
Re:What else is there to say? (Score:4, Interesting)
This nonsense is crushing innovation. It's one more in a long line of examples of how we need to reevaluate how we govern ourselves.
Sure it's nonsense, but I appreciate how the Supreme Court moves slowly and thoughtfully compared to the other branches of government. Perhaps they move a bit too slowly some times but the other two move so knee-jerk quickly most of the time that maybe the SC needs to be even slower to balance it out.
Re:As opposed to patents that cover algorithms? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, where should I begin; false dilemma, straw man, coincidental correlation? False dilemma: Just because there are significant innovations now, does not mean that there would not be more significant innovations without software patents. Straw man: Stifling innovation is not the same as making "it so unprofitable to innovate that no one does it", which is the point you go on to attack. Coincidental correlation: Just because we have patents and then innovation does not prove that patents cause innovation.
Considering that innovation predates patents (so there cannot be an exclusive causal effect), where is your evidence that patents further innovation?
(Personally, I believe patents can encourage innovation, but I also believe in the proverb "too much of a good thing, is a bad thing.")
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)