4 ms·

> the patent describes (...) routine tasks that could be performed by a human. Is this a good way of defining when a patent is invalid? Isn't everything (i.e.:

> the patent describes (...) routine tasks that could be performed by a human. Is this a good way of defining when a patent is invalid? Isn't everything (i.e.: all computations) technically tasks that could be performed by humans alone given enough time?

adebtlawyer 11y ago
The key word is 'routine.' Patentable subject matter is supposed to be non-obvious, in other words, innovative.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  In a post-Alice world, anyway. Pre-Alice, patentable subject matter and nonobviousness were separate requirements.
  - adebtlawyer 11y ago
    I'm not familiar with Alice. As far as I know, you're right, non-obviousness is different than patentable subject matter. Sorry to elide them together like that. I never claimed to be patent lawyer.
    - monochromatic 11y ago
      Not a problem, you did just as well as the U.S. Supreme Court. (Alice is a mess in my opinion, if you couldn't tell--it mixes two requirements that were supposed to completely separate.)
protomyth 11y ago
you missed the second part: 'eDekka said its patent claims to "improve the functioning of technology," but Gilstrap ruled the claimed improvements simply weren't present. None of the eDekka claims met the standard for patenting, Gilstrap found.'
WildUtah 11y ago
In the Bilski decision the Supreme Court drew a distinction between routine logical and mathematical operations that have existed for thousands of years and complicated technical operations like linear programming, encryption, and compression that truly change the operation of hardware and go far beyond mere logic and math. [0] Only Judge Scalia noticed the idiocy in time to stop those specific examples from being binding precedent, though the principle still is. [1] That's the level of understanding you can expect from the courts. 0 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf 1 http://boingboing.net/2015/07/08/tom-the-dancing-bug-judge-sca-3.html http://boingboing.net/2015/07/08/tom-the-dancing-bug-judge-s...

adebtlawyer 11y ago

The key word is 'routine.' Patentable subject matter is supposed to be non-obvious, in other words, innovative.

monochromatic 11y ago
In a post-Alice world, anyway. Pre-Alice, patentable subject matter and nonobviousness were separate requirements.
- adebtlawyer 11y ago
  I'm not familiar with Alice. As far as I know, you're right, non-obviousness is different than patentable subject matter. Sorry to elide them together like that. I never claimed to be patent lawyer.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    Not a problem, you did just as well as the U.S. Supreme Court. (Alice is a mess in my opinion, if you couldn't tell--it mixes two requirements that were supposed to completely separate.)

protomyth 11y ago

you missed the second part: 'eDekka said its patent claims to "improve the functioning of technology," but Gilstrap ruled the claimed improvements simply weren't present. None of the eDekka claims met the standard for patenting, Gilstrap found.'

WildUtah 11y ago

In the Bilski decision the Supreme Court drew a distinction between routine logical and mathematical operations that have existed for thousands of years and complicated technical operations like linear programming, encryption, and compression that truly change the operation of hardware and go far beyond mere logic and math. [0] Only Judge Scalia noticed the idiocy in time to stop those specific examples from being binding precedent, though the principle still is. [1] That's the level of understanding you can expect from the courts. 0 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf 1 http://boingboing.net/2015/07/08/tom-the-dancing-bug-judge-sca-3.html http://boingboing.net/2015/07/08/tom-the-dancing-bug-judge-s...