3 ms·
We're going to see lots more of these claims by patent-infringement defendants, whose trial counsel will figure, what the hell, let's give it a shot. Therein l
by dctoedt 12y ago
We're going to see lots more of these claims by patent-infringement defendants, whose trial counsel will figure, what the hell, let's give it a shot.
Therein lies the practical problem with the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. [1]: Just about any new technology could be described as a "generic implementation" of an abstract idea --- which the Court said is unpatentable. The Court gave us little or no useful guidance for distinguishing between an unpatentable generic implementation and a patentable "invention."
[1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf
- harshreality 12y agoEven the court's hint that combining multiple abstract ideas in a way that improves the state of the art of existing tech provides no clear distinction between what is and isn't patentable. Until the Court understands that composing mathematical expressions doesn't turn them into a different kind of thing, and writes clear rules one way or the other about what's patentable, nothing is really resolved.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> Therein lies the practical problem with the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. [1]: Just about any new technology could be described as a "generic implementation" of an abstract idea This may be true in the domain of software patents (though not of technology generally.) OTOH, I don't think that's a problem with Alice so much as with many, if not all, software patents.