7 Comments

Summary:

The Supreme Court is hearing what many regard as the most important patent case in years, which is expected to provide new rules on what can and can’t be patented.

U.S. Supreme Court
photo: flickr / dbking

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether a company named Alice Corp can own an “invention” for escrow accounts. While the idea of escrow has been around for centuries, Alice Corp has a patent that describes the concept of using a computer to implement it.

For Alice’s opponent, CLS Bank, a lot is at stake since the bank uses the patented process to clear millions of dollars in financial transactions each day. Even more is at stake for an American patent system swamped by millions of low-quality patents, many of them — like the one belonging to Alice Corp — related to software.

What can and can’t be patented

While the Supreme Court has issued many decisions about patent rules in recent years, Alice looks at the more fundamental question of what sort of things should receive patent protection in the first place. For now, the law is clear that “abstract ideas” like math formulas or gravity can’t be patented, and that specific applications that describe a process for implementing an idea are eligible for a patent. The question in Alice is where software fits into all this.

“Software or business method patents are typically broad patents that often cover basic methods of doing business,” said Brian LaCorte, a lawyer at Ballard Spahr, who is skeptical about patents that describe using a computer to implement age-old ideas such as escrow accounts.

From an economic perspective, to the degree that such software patents fail to offer genuinely new ideas, they appear to upset the notion of treating the patent system as a bargain between society and inventors.

As Robin Feldman, an influential patent scholar, wrote in the New York Times last week, patents like the one belonging to Alice Corp can result in the government handing out a powerful monopoly without receiving anything of value in return — the “inventor” gets a patent, but doesn’t disclose any undiscovered science or ideas. Another scholar, Mark Lemley, said of such patents in 2011, “they claim everything but contribute nothing.”

The Alice case also comes at a time that the Supreme Court is paring back patents in other areas. Last year, for instance, the court ruled that human genes are not eligible for patents.

Are software patents a “tax” on the tech sector?

The Alice case induced a long list of companies to file briefs, including a joint submission from a group of tech companies  — including Google, Amazon, Facebook and Netflix — that are rivals in the marketplace, but that have come together to ask the Supreme Court to squash abstract software patents.

“[A]bstract software patents have become a plague on computer-related industries,” noted the companies in their brief. The filing also claimed that the proliferation of such patents is “effectively tax innovation,” and includes a 1991 quote from former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates that warns that patents could have brought the early software industry to “a standstill.”

For many, the issue right now isn’t just theoretical. David Selinger, CEO of web-shopping firm RichRelevance, says his company spent about four percent of its annual revenue last year managing patent trolls.

“I think there’s a strong case for abolishing all software patents…or at a minimum, software patents should reasonably advance art and describe how you’re doing it,” Selinger, whose company also filed a brief arguing the Alice Corp “invention” should be ineligible for a patent, told me.

Other tech companies, including Microsoft and IBM, have taken a different view of the case, suggesting in their briefs that Alice Corp’s patents are not appropriate but expressing approval for other types of software patents. (Patently-O has a detailed rundown here.)

Supreme Court cleans up unfinished business

One reason the Alice case is before the Supreme Court in the first place is that the court made a hash of the same issue four years ago. In a 2010 decision known as Bilski, the court explored many of the same issues that are now before it in Alice — but provided little useful guidance on how to screen for such patents in the future.

In the Bilski case, the Court rejected a patent describing a computer-related method for hedging commodity risks. In doing so, however, the Justices also threw out a “machine-or-transformation” test that had been used to evaluate when a patent should be granted, while also failing to provide alternate criteria for lower courts and the Patent Office to use instead. The situation soon became even more complicated after an appeals court panel, hearing the Alice case, attempted to apply Bilski — and produced a messy judgment in the form of seven different opinions from ten judges.

For the Supreme Court, then, Alice is an opportunity to correct its earlier mistake by finding a better way to draw a circle around what can and can’t be patented. The court is unlikely to outlaw software patents altogether, but will likely instead issue rules that make them easier to challenge — and to reduce the likelihood the Patent Office will issue them in the first place. In the short term, however, the Supreme Court’s decision is unlikely to do much to flush away many of the millions of low-quality patents already in the system.

Update: The transcript of Monday’s court is now available; legal observers have suggested that the Justices’ line questioning mean they are inclined to invalidate Alice’s patent, but not eliminate software patents altogether.

Outside attention

The Alice case is unusual because of the attention it is drawing from outside the legal community. Along with the attention from the tech industry, Alice also gave rise to weekend editorials by the New York Times and the Economist.

All the interest reflects how patents — and the monopoly they grant over ideas — have proliferated in recent years, and led to the rise of patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures, which don’t use the patents they acquire, but simply demand money from others. (By most accounts, Alice Corp is such a troll.)

The Supreme Court, which has heard several other patent cases this term, is also not the only branch of government looking to fix the patent system: The White House issued a series of executive orders to curb patent trolls, while Congress is expected to pass a patent reform bill this spring.

  1. You can’t patent mathematical formulas, Porgrams are just a series of formulas with input.

    Share
  2. Respectfully, Alice’s patents are not computer implemented escrow – there is no requirement for Alice to hold the funds. What Alice is about is a mechanism for settlement using among others, shadow accounts. Alice’s contribution relates to settlement and presents a mechanism for achieving guaranteed settlement.This mechanism may potentially be retrofitted an escrow model, but that is not what the patent is about.

    Share
    1. Mick. Thanks for that bit of logic

      Share
    2. Mick, thanks for the comment, but I would suggest that the shadow accounts and, in the words of the claim, “a data processing system to enable the exchange of an obligation between parties” serve to describe a computer-assisted escrow process. I feel this is a fair short-hand description, and one that other news outlets and patent blogs have adopted too.

      I also made a point of linking to the patent itself right in the first paragraph of the story, so people could see — and decide — for themselves (though not everyone appears to agree…)

      Share
      1. Firstly, Monday’s shindig was less about escrow and more about what constitutes patentable matter. The issue at play is when is something abstract versus when is it concrete. Long story short – Alice not only supplies a “what” (i.e. the abstract thingy invented), but also a “how” (i.e. how to make the abstract thingy concrete). In this regard they are quite different to the Bilski finding referenced in your article – Bilski only did the “what”.

        Secondly, echoing dbhalling’s comments and with respect Jeff, I’d suggest that your understanding of escrow is a little off the mark.

        Share
  3. Well your first sentence is wrong. Alice’s patent does not cover escrow accounts of any kind. Look up the definition of escrow account and read the claims and you will see that.

    Share
  4. ‘From an economic perspective, to the degree that such software patents fail to offer genuinely new ideas’

    ‘From an economic perspective, to the degree that such software patents fail to offer genuinely new ideas…’

    No patent is issued unless it claims an invention that is novel and non obvious. If by mistake it issues, it will simply be invalidated. Patent holders and their would be attorneys know that and for that reason no sane patent holder will assert such claims as they will put millions in legal fees at stake in attempting to enforce such a patent. The premise of your article is incorrect.

    Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is.

    http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=276448190&m=276545654&live=1
    http://www.npr.org/2013/11/06/243022966/secret-persuasion-how-big-campaign-donors-stay-anonymous

    “patent reform”…America Invents Act, vers 1.0, 2.0, 3.0…

    “This is not a patent reform bill” Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) complained,
    despite other democrats praising the overhaul. “This is a big
    corporation patent giveaway that tramples on the right of small
    inventors.”

    Senator Cantwell is right. All these bills do is legalize theft. Just because they call it “reform” doesn’t mean it is. The paid puppets of banks, huge multinationals, and China continue to brain wash and bankrupt America.

    They should have called these bills the America STOPS Inventing Act or ASIA, because that’s where they’re sending all our jobs. The present bill (vers 1, 2, 3, etc) is nothing less than another giveaway for huge multinationals and China and an off shoring job killing nightmare for America. Even the leading patent expert in China has stated these bills will help them steal our inventions.

    Patent reform is a fraud on America. These bills will not do what they claim they will. What they will do is help large multinational corporations maintain their monopolies by robbing and destroying their small entity and startup competitors (so it will do exactly what they paid for) and with them the jobs they would have created. They have already damaged the US patent system so that property rights are teetering on lawlessness. These bills will only make it harder and more expensive for small firms to get and enforce their patents. Without patents we cant get funded. In this way large firms are able to play king of the hill and keep their small competitors from reaching the top as they have. Yet small entities create the lion’s share of new jobs. According to recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation and economists at the U.S. Census Bureau, “startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They’re the only thing.” Meanwhile, the large multinationals ship more and more jobs overseas. These bills are a wholesale destroyer of US jobs.

    Small entities and inventors have been given far too little voice on this bill when one considers that they rely far more heavily on the patent system than do large firms who can control their markets by their size alone. The smaller the firm, the more they rely on patents -especially startups and individual inventors. Congress and Obama tinkering with patent law while gagging inventors is like a surgeon operating before examining the patient.

    Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways and set America on a course for sustainable prosperity, not large corporation lobbied poverty, should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.

    for a different/opposing view on patent reform, please see…
    http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html
    http://piausa.wordpress.com/
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/patent-reform-like-most-reforms-in-the-end-benefits-the-biggest-guys-with-the-best-lobbyists/article/2524033
    http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/142741

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post