If you don't want to read through all the explanation of what patents are and why the they are too strict here is the two paragraphs of news:<p>"America’s Supreme Court is about to issue a ruling which, by all accounts, will make it difficult, if not impossible, to get a patent for a business process. And because most business processes are, at bottom, computer algorithms, the Supreme Court’s judgment could also bar all sorts of software patents in the process. As a result, a lot of patents for online shopping, medical-diagnostic tests and procedures for executing trades on Wall Street could be invalidated.<p>The roots of the dispute go back more than a decade to two inventors, Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw, who sought to patent a method of hedging weather-related risks in energy prices. The USPTO concluded that the process was too abstract and denied the application. On appeal, the Federal Circuit actually upheld the patent office’s decision—and said, crucially, that the process would be eligible for a patent only if it was “tied to a particular machine or apparatus” or if it “transformed a particular article into a different state or thing”. Failing on both counts, the inventors took their case to the Supreme Court, which has been pondering for the past few months whether the “machine-or-transformation” test is an appropriate standard. It is hard to conclude it is not. "
I wouldn't hold my breath that the forthcoming <i>Bilski</i> decision will put an end to frivolous patents.<p>While it is true that the justices appeared to be highly skeptical at oral argument of the patent claims being asserted in this case, one must remember context here: in essence, <i>Bilski</i> was <i>the</i> decision by which the Federal Circuit sought to rein in process patents in the first place, and it did so with a rationale that, while clearly limiting such patents, relied on a somewhat arbitrary test that finds no direct support in either the constitution or the patent statutes (industry participants clearly see the case as potentially major and have filed over 50 amicus, or "friend-of-the-court" briefs with the Court). One might think of it as a pragmatic test by which the Federal Circuit sought almost out of desperation to bring some measure of sanity to this area.<p>It is never good news for your case, though, when the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that first adopted a novel test that the lower court basically invented. This typically means that at least a good number of the justices are prepared potentially to reverse that decision and, if that should occur here, this will mean that there may be <i>broader</i> scope than exists today for the granting of process patents.<p>Again, the justices did not seem impressed at argument with the claims for broad patentability as asserted by the claimant in this case and they may easily rule against him, as did the Federal Circuit court. But they may choose to rule on narrow grounds that perhaps strike down the Federal Circuit test without attempting to define the rules definitively going forward (the Court often does this on the theory that an issue will continue to develop over time as it considers how best to finally deal with it).<p>It is a mistake to have raised expectations about the impact of this case in striking down process and software patents. It may happen but, if it does, that will be a surprise and not an expected outcome. In this sense, this piece is a bit over-optimistic, in my view.
I have to admit: this is one of the most well reasoned, clearly articulated discussions of the patent system I have read in a very long time.<p>Only one portion that I think is misleading:<p>"Meanwhile, the loss of patent protection for software could make programmers realise at last that they have more in common with authors, artists, publishers and musicians than they ever had with molecular architects and chip designers. In short, they produce expressions of ideas that are eminently copyrightable."<p>As you can imagine, the process of copyrighting code is somewhat unwieldy. The definition of what constitutes copyright violation (changing variable names? functionally similar code with a differing structure?) and what constitutes fair use is hazy. Is it the answer to the patent woes of today? Probably not, but it could evolve into a more complete solution if/when it is more heavily utilized and more cases are litigated to develop a stronger precedent.
No matter what the decision is, there is an army of patent lawyers whose livelihoods depend on the existing system. They will fight the only way they know how (filling lots of lawsuits) for years before business practices change.
While copyright does last for 70 years, it doesn't seem all that useful to software developers. After all, if the idea behind a piece of software is not protected, it is a relatively simple matter to rewrite it (if given the idea).<p>That said, an end to software patents would be welcome indeed. I wonder if this would have any impact on the H.264 patent?
The transcript of the relevant Supreme Court hearing is the reason for hope and is remarkable thoughtful:
<a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-964.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transc...</a>
I don't feel as optimistic as the author does; yes, the SCOTUS is currently examining what may turn into a landmark case on the patent system. However, this is a seemingly addled Supreme Court, given some of its recent decisions -- and many of the members are the same ones who didn't buy Larry Lessig's assertion that copyright terms, currently the life of an author + 90 years, is far beyond the constitution's "limited time" requirement.