Find solution
How do you patent ideas?

Supreme Court reins in patent insanity a bit-limits the ability to gain software patents on abstract ideas. Is this a good thing? Why?

  • The specific patent in question uses a computer to safeguard complex financial transactions, largely among banks. The program is intended to reduce the risk that one party can't hold up its end of the deal. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing carefully for the court, ruled that the third-party settlement concept is an "abstract idea," and using a computer to implement it "cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Not once did the 17-page opinion use the word "software." Sounds simple, but the case, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, posed huge risks for both sides. If the court had upheld the patent, the problem of proliferating patent lawsuits would continue unabated. The number of software patents granted annually has soared from about 2,000 in 1980 to more than 40,000. They account for nearly half of all patent lawsuits in recent years. If the court struck down a broad swath of patents, it could have rendered thousands of existing ones extinct and created havoc for some of the nation's leading business and software companies. Nearly 3 million Americans work for software and information technology companies, which generate more than $250 billion in annual revenue. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/06/19/supreme-court-computer-patent/9190199/

  • Answer:

    Sorry, but patents should be only for actual finished working products.

Wynper at Answerbag.com Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

The patent system as it stands is not, in my opinion, fit for purpose. I do not think that many people are depending on patents to protect their inventions, particularly in the field of software. And I do not think that many of those three million people would actually be affected if all software patents were struck down. At the moment, the main results of software patents are, firstly, to provide a good employment for patent agents and lawyers, secondly, to allow the existence of patent trolls, and thirdly to make if difficult to combine many small good ideas into a single program that consumers can use. The latter means that the effect of the system is the opposite of its intent: it locks people out from inventions rather than encouraging them.

Im Alec

Yes. I agree with this unanimous decision.

Thriftymaid

I am pretty smart. I cannot for the life of me figure out how in the world you expect me to come up with some solution to this?

TERRY CLOTH TOWEL

I think the only real solution here is to outlaw software-only patents: the patent system just doesn't serve this field very well, it seems to cause a lot more harm than good. I don't know that I agree with Thomas' reasoning though: there's nothing that I know of in the basic principles for patentability which forbids abstraction -- of course one must be able to create a concrete expression of that abstraction, but that wasn't a problem in this case. So it seems like maybe the decision was based on dubious reasoning. Still... we've seen enough of patent trolls and IP warchests and endless valueless wars between the Samsungs and Apples of the world, etc. Enough is enough... we should just toss in the towel and zero out the concept of software patents.

HasntBeen

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.