decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

The Bilski oral arguments - Groklaw member webster attended - Updated 3Xs - RFD went too
Friday, May 09 2008 @ 12:06 AM EDT

Groklaw member webster attended the en banc oral arguments in In re Bilski today before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC. This is the case trying to figure out precisely what is and is not patentable and whether or not to overturn State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group. You may recall that Red Hat submitted an amicus brief in the case (text). There were many, many amici briefs. To give you the picture of one in support of Bilski getting its patent, here's the amicus brief [PDF] by the American Intellectual Property Law Association, in support of the appellants. IBM's [PDF] argues that there should be no business methods patents.

Here's a snip of IBM's argument:
Finally, no sound patent policy supports patent protection for non-technological processes, including non-technological business methods. Patent-based incentives are simply not needed to spur business method innovation. To the contrary, allowing non-technological business methods to be patented would only stifle competition without promoting innovation.

Even Microsoft filed a brief [PDF], along with Dell and Symantec, and they too are worried at the thought of such a patent as Bilski is trying to get:

Amici both own process patents and are frequently defendants in suits alleging infringement of such patents owned by others. They thus have a profound interest in the standard that governs whether such patents claim patent-eligible subject matter. They also have an interest in the patent system as a whole and in the harm done to that system by the issuance of patents that claim nothing more than abstract concepts. By requiring that process inventions, like machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter, must be physical in nature and must produce a result that has specific practical utility -- a result that is, in this Court's words, "useful, concrete and tangible" -- this Court can restore proper balance to the system and provide guidance to the courts, the PTO, the bar, and the public.


The Bilski patent application claims a process -- specifically, "a method for managing the consumption of risk costs of a commodity." The claimed process neither requires the use of a machine or other apparatus, nor effects a transformation of physical subject matter into a different state or thing. The claimed process is, however, arguably useful, with practical, real-world applications. The question before the Court, then, is whether such a process, unbounded by any physical limitations but with practical utility is a patentable process within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. Section 101.

Interesting, huh? I think all Linux penguins should file those words away under their legal feathers, to be brought out on some future rainy day.

The brief [PDF] by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) goes further:

The explosive spread of patents in the wake of State Street has made a public spectacle of the patent system.

Patently-O's Dennis Crouch is thinking this will be the result after the oral arguments today:

  • PTO’s decision will be affirmed by shaping the facts (e.g., by calling the invention an abstract idea).
  • State Street will not be overruled.
  • The court will not implement a “machine test.”

By affirmed, he means that the USPTO refused to grant a business method patent (the Board of Patents and Interferences' decision {PDF]), and he believes the appeals court will affirm that refusal. But Red Hat raised the issue of software patents hindering innovation, particularly for Free and Open Source software creators. Here's another account of how the arguments went, by Gene Quinn on the Practising Law Institute's website.

Update 2: Other reports on the day's events are in now. Here's one from PIJIP, the American University Washington College of Law's Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property:

The different judges of the en banc Court were looking for guidance on how to establish clear rules or standards that were readily applied to distinguish between patent eligible and patent ineligible inventions. Their questions focused principally on whether the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), established binding limits on patent eligibility or only provided guidance on things that clearly are patentable, when it said: “Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.” Id. at 184 (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972)). Many of the questions explored what kinds of transformations make a process patent eligible – in particular, whether processes are eligible if they merely transform data (or the form or state of information), or if they change only extrinsic properties (but not the intrinsic nature) of an article or composition of matter (such as a new method of curving a baseball). The judges also asked: whether Section 101 eligibility analysis is needed or whether Sections 102, 103, and 112 analysis is preferable; how the Section 101 analysis relates to the other sections; and what authority the court had to adopt or extend eligibility limits. Some of the judges appeared concerned with any standard that would threaten eligibility of many or most software inventions. Judge Newman articulated the policy concern that Section 101 should be construed broadly to assure that the patents were available for new technologies. No judge or counsel articulated any strong policy reason for limiting patent eligibility – such as preserving a public domain of science by preventing patents on trivial or limited applications thereof, as argued in an amicus brief I filed on behalf of ten law professors. All of the judges appeared to accept that the Supreme Court precedent prohibits patents for laws of nature, natural materials, and abstract ideas (except perhaps Judge Rader, who pushed the PTO counsel to explain why an invention that qualified as a process – understood as a series of steps – should be excluded); some of the judges’ questions explored whether the transformation test – or what other considerations – defined the difference between ineligible abstract ideas and patentable processes. Finally, some of the judges expressed skepticism that use of a computer (rather than pencil and paper) converts a process based on a mental step into a patentable invention.

The parties counsel and counsel for the different financial services companies who had filed amicus briefs kept their arguments closely tied to the positions in their briefs. John Duffy, arguing for amicus Regulatory Datacorp, Inc., argued against the “factor” test proposed by William Lee and Seth Waxman (the former Solicitor General) on behalf of the Bank of America Corp., Metropolitan Life, the Financial Services Roundtable, and other financial services companies. Duffy argued that there is no “per se” rule of ineligibility because the nature of technology may change, and that eligible transformations may include transformation of intangible things having practical significance. But he also noted that Section 101 threshold analysis is required by binding precedent and incorporates considerations that are similar to those applied by other statutory sections, including the breadth of the claims (which also is considered under Section 112 for written description and enablement). William Lee argued against the position of Judge Dyk in In re Comiskey, 499 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007), that a claim that practically required or explicitly required use of a machine was sufficient to demonstrate patent eligibility, given the statement in Diehr that “insignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process. To hold otherwise would allow a competent draftsman to evade the recognized limitations on the type of subject matter eligible for patent protection.” 450 U.S. at 191-92. Lee also argued that the machine claim in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), also reflected insignificant post-solution activity and its holding should be repudiated, but (if I heard correctly) he also argued that the rasterized information display in In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) was patent eligible as a sufficient transformation.

We have webster's eyewitness report, with his own special sauce, as is his wont. And you can listen to the arguments for yourself. Go to this page to search for oral argument before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If you search for keyword Bilski in the top box, marked Caption, you will get three links, the first being the earlier October 2007 hearing, and the second two links the May 8 hearing divided into two parts.) When you hear them discussing Section 101, this is what they mean, 35 U.S.C. 101: Patentable Subject Matter. And they mention the recent Comiskey decision, so here it is [PDF], so you will know what they are talking about. Also, here's the other case they mention, Microsoft v. AT&T [PDF], which Groklaw has done as text.

I'm about half way through the mp3, and it's so amusing to hear the silences that follow fundamental questions about where the line should be drawn. How about curve balls? Chiropractic services? Number crunching? The questions alone inform me that the line is waaaaaay over any logical or rational line, and that is why at least two lawyers say they'd have to think about a judge's question. The problem, as I see it, is that the patent office went too far, and while each incremental step seemed to make sense to them as they went along, now they can't answer the big picture questions. Like drifting in a row boat, where the current takes you far, far away from where you meant to be without you quite realizing it. Here's a question: what happens to innovation if you allow pure thoughts to be patented? How do you enforce thought laws? It's a riot, but also a bit sad to me to hear the USPTO's representative answer the many questions.

Here's webster's report just for us:


Part One: Getting There, Nothing about Patents

With decades of experience in the local and federal courts of the three adjunct jurisdictions from traffic court to the courts of appeals, Counsel could not find the Markey Courthouse, home of the Circuit Court for the Federal Circuit of the District of Columbia. Google showed two 717 Madisons in NW DC. One appeared to be near the Ellipse which is near the White House, rarified air for this local lawyer. It was a good day to play hooky with the local courts in conference and a couple colleagues to cover in the “community court.”

The decision was made for him with an invitation from a colleague to walk that way for lunch at the carry-out run out the back of the Old Ebbitt Grill, a venerable institution. After lunch counsel wandered around the Department of Commerce for twelve blocks looking for John Madison Place, counsel was finally directed back around the corner of the Old Ebbitt. No matter, he was plenty early even for the most momentous argument in recent memory at least for the U.S. patent world. Counsel walked by Pennsylvania Avenue a block east from the White House. It is closed to traffic with barriers and cobblestones. This is so that truck bombs can’t get too close to the White House. Counsel once had a client arrested for driving by this spot in a pick-up with a shotgun in the rack. There weren’t many places he could go without thinking of a crime.

The courthouse had a magnificent setting right on Lafayette Square. It also had a long 40-yard line outside. Counsel approached the guard from the US Marshal service and asked if he could go in immediately with his [Local] Court ID. “No.” When asked for room 201, the marshal gave directions and added “That’s were the action is.” So he got in line hoping there would be room. Forty minutes before the hearing and there was already a long line. Inside at the security Counsel had a better welcome. One of the Marshals greeted him with familiarity. Too bad he wasn’t outside. He had been at the local court some years ago, an old familiar face.

The courtroom was a surprise and worthy of its special status. It was large with the familiar wooden benches, but they were cushioned. They were really full. Counsel found a seat on the side, also cushioned. There were dark suits, dark wood, dark carpets, and many greyheads. There were twelve cushioned chairs facing the room from behind the bench with bronze plaques that would be readable by those arguing only. Two black clerks in tailored suits brought icewater to various seats. This was clearly a big day.

This is not counsel’s field. He had not prepared. He asked his bench partner who would argue first, the patent holder or the challenger. He explained the issues but said he didn’t know who would go first. The gavel sounded.

The justices came out from behind on both sides like curtains sweeping closed. The chief judge would sit in the middle with the rest seated presumptively by order of seniority on this bench. The Chief Judge then commenced the somber proceeding by twice repeating the cell phone incantation. The very same warning the bailiff had been repeating prior to his entrance. Fortunately this day, their prayers were answered.

Part Two – The Hearing

The Chief Judge announced that each side would get thirty minutes, then ten for an amicus and ten for rebuttal.

Foreword: A Mr. David Hanson (of the Webb Law Firm) began the arguments for the Appellant (Bilski). Surely he was well-prepared and had a ready grasp of the leading cases, but neither he or any other speaker would stand up to the barrage of questions by this Court. The number of Judges asking questions and the number of questions were truly extraordinary. Of course getting 12 justices to organize and order their questions is worse than herding cats, but they know the issues. Not two minutes into the opening argument, the Judges began interrupting the speaker with very pointed questions. The questions reflected a discussion, one clearly had amongst the judges, but also among the courts, congress and society. It was almost like deliberating with the court itself. They were very open with their articulate observations and their cry for help in search of a standard. The parties had difficulty with the courts blunt approach. They have special interests and wouldn’t respond with a simple standard or recommendation. The Court doesn’t know and seeks guidance. The judicial precedents are not clear and the statute is not clear. As one justice put it “We need a standard for the patent examiner. We can’t decide every patent that comes along.” The hearing was much more a judicial presentation rather than a presentation by any of the parties. The judicial inquiry completely overwhelmed the hearing.

Mr. Hanson was arguing for the approval of the Bilski patent which was a way of “enabling the sale of a commodity taking into consideration the supply and the weather rather than just the price.” He felt it was wrong for the patent office to deny this patent as simply covering the abstract idea of hedging. Judges 1, 2, and 6 asked the first questions in the first five minutes. They agreed that mere ideas and abstractions were not patentable, but Mr. Hanson argued that communication and the transformation of data by a process was patentable.

They discussed the terms of Section 101 patentability. Tangible and concrete were problematic. Concrete, tangible and useful are the antithesis of abstract. Totally mental is not patentable. Hanson’s answer was that real world communications and third party activity was tangible and a transformation.

Transformation was discussed at length. The Transformation test supported patentability. It is concrete and tangible. Something changes. At the same time, Hanson did not want transformation used as a test that would exclude patentability. Just because something was not physically transformed did not mean that it should not be patented.

The Chief Judge then inquired about “specificity” as a concept that would help in applying section 101. This interested two female judges on the far right, 11 and 12. “Transformation is sufficient but not necessary” for a patent. 12. Judge 11 suggesting building on specificity and examining eligibility under sections 101, 102, and 112, but noted that the broader a claim is the more likely it is to be abstract. Therefore specifics keep the claim from being abstract.

Hanson noted that there are books on hedging but just on the price. They were not focused on the consumption risk, apparently the grounds for his precious patent.

Then the Chief Judge chimes in “How much more than something in the mind does the patent have to be? We need help?” Hanson suggested the answer, “It can’t be trivial.” Judge 5 joined the fray. Patents are for concrete results. On one side there is abstract ideas and items found in nature and on the other tangible and concrete claims. “What is in between? Is there a long space in between? Are we pushing policy? Where do we draw the bright line?”

Hanson answered pushing his patent. “Information shouldn’t have a special rule. If there is activity that generates a fixed price to the consumer there is transformation. Poor Hanson. He was there to argue one patent that was rejected. He was hit by the philosophical and statutory dilemmas of the nation. They couldn’t see his tree for the forest.

Next up was Professor John Duffy on behalf of Regulatory Datacorp, one of the amici. [PJ: Here is his amici brief. He was one of those who filed an amicus brief who was asked to attend and present oral argument. The second was the "Financial Services Industry", representing the Bank of America, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia, et al. Here's their brief [PDF]. They address the trick of adding "on a computer" to make something patentable, and they argue that State Street should be overruled.] He seemed to be for patentability too. Judge 2 didn’t even let him get started. The judge noted that abstract ideas are excluded from patentable material. Nor is natural or physical phenomenon patentable. Duffy urged caution. Beware of the per se rules. The Supreme Court says that transformation is a clue. Duffy noted that transformation is a factor but not a per se test. It had to be transformation of subject matter.

The Chief Judge jumped back into it. The Supreme Court has declared that there are certain “No No’s’ [sic] in this area. “Can we create an additional ‘No No’ or should we wait for the Supreme Court?” Mr. Duffy’s answer was that the court had the authority to clarify. Deferential if not helpful.

Mr. Duffy added that the court must follow the intent of Congress and that was to be broad-minded. It was the intent of congress to be amorphous and stay away from per se rules. He introduced the phrase “Financial Engineering,” which certainly has the ring of process and steel to it.

Raymond Chen then stood for the United States Patent Office. Their position was that this was not a good case for this issue. He didn’t help the judges any either. In fact he called for a decision but not in this case. He said that a transformation is a clue that a process is patentable. It doesn’t have to be tied to an apparatus.

“Doesn’t a computer just make mental steps?” boomed in one judge. “Are you asking us to overrule State Street?” The judges were really looking for insight and guidance. They had been over these matters with little success among themselves, I gather.

Judge 4 in the clearest metaphor heretofore: “I do taxes by computer. I use to do it by thinking." State Street indicates that the transformation of data becomes useful. The Chief Judge noted point blank that the United States did not ask in this case that State Street be overturned. He asked Mr. Chen’s view of State Street. Mr. Chen said that this was not the case to revisit State Street because the Bilski patent did not have a computer. Section 101 was sufficient since it was just useful steps to be taken.

Judge 5 then noted by question that they were trying to legislate innovation which is beyond their power, says the Supreme Court. It is policy. Mr. Chen noted that Section 101 has been reaffirmed already. Patents should be broad to accommodate new technology.

Judge 12 asked about all software patents. She noted that software without a machine has issues. Mr. Chen than urged the court not to put software patents in this case as the media has. The facts are bad.

Judge 11 then offered the example of a “chiropractic back adjustment” for patentability. Is this a method, a process that achieves transformation?

Then the crowning metaphor was introduced by another Judge. “Is a curve ball patentable?” If you transform a baseball into a green pea, that would be patentable. Is the process of throwing a curve ball patentable?

Mr. Chen then argued that this case was about contract formation, an intangible. The judges then started a discussion about statutory construction. Does Section 101 stand alone or can one turn to sections 102, 103 and 112 to reference patentability?

Mr. Chen was a reluctant respondent. Officially this was not the case the patent office wanted for the questions they received. When asked if one could get a patent for a process tied to a computer, he gave a very unreassuring “probably yes” -- that there was a transformation of the information process. Judge 10 said something about the invention of the patent office.

Mr. Lee for the Amicus spoke next. He represented financial institutions with a significant interest, who thanked the court for letting him participate. He actually did get into proposing a factor test for the court. Before he could get through it, he was siding against patenting the process of throwing a curve ball.

A judge then asked how could there be a test for a section 101 patent using section 103? Mr. Lee said they overlap. The judges flocked back to the “computer is just mental” discussion, and Mr. Lee rested.

Mr. Hanson had the last word. He had had time to think. Without a barrage of questions, he had come up with the expression to save his patent. He asked the court to think of "information as physical." It is therefore tangible and can be transformed. Probably just like a baseball to a pea. The hearing adjourned.

Update: Groklaw member RFD went to the hearing also, and here is his impression of the event:


I also attended the hearing yesterday and thought I might offer a few observations, but I will not attempt to compete with Webster. I arrived at the courthouse about noon (for a 2:00 pm hearing) with the intention of going to get something to eat after I was sure where the courthouse was located. I was shocked to find a very long line waiting outside. Fortunately the line was under cover since it was raining. I did not expect to get in, but I decided to wait and see -- I also skipped lunch. An hour and fifteen minutes latter, the security people started letting people in, and much to my surprise, I found a seat near the front.

While waiting in line I chatted with two patent attorneys -- one who was with the trade association that was given argument time and one who represented the plaintiffs in the Blackberry case. They both supported Bilski. During the hearing I sat next to a patent examiner from the USPTO.

En bank hearings in this court are rare, and one that attracts this many attendees is even rarer, although not unprecedented. What may be unprecedented are the 30 amicus briefs.

In general, I was underwhelmed by the oral arguments and the lack of substance in those presentations and in the answers or (most of the time) the non-answers to the many pointed questions the judges asked. Clearly the judges were much better prepared for this hearing than the parties. Perhaps the most significant outcome of the hearing may be that the parties and amici were unable (or unwilling) to address the issue of what is and is not patentable. As Webster noted, the second amicus presentation was the one exception.

Hopefully, some of the 30 amicus briefs will help the court in deciding this case. The court seems to view this as an important case, and the 30 amicus briefs, and the large attendance should reinforce that view.


The Bilski oral arguments - Groklaw member webster attended - Updated 3Xs - RFD went too | 316 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections - item in subject line please...
Authored by: tce on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 12:24 AM EDT
a -> b

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: tce on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 12:25 AM EDT
Clickys are nice

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic here please
Authored by: tce on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 12:27 AM EDT
Clickys are appreciated.

<a href="">Like this</a>

...and preview helps too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks Webster!.... and a test...The Bilski oral arguments - Groklaw member webster attended
Authored by: tce on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 12:30 AM EDT
Thank you!

How about this for a test:

If you can do the transformational "work" in your head, at least as a
"though experiment", its not patentable.

Writing down the answer does not count.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patenting "transformation of information" == patenting math
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 12:33 AM EDT
== patenting an abstract idea.

It looks like at least some of the judges are onto that. This could get very

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patenting phone calls
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 12:52 AM EDT
If something accomplished by a series of useful steps is patentable, I could
patent calling someone on a telephone.

1) Pick up the handset.

2) Dial the number you are calling.

3) Say, "Hello," when the called party answers.

Software patents and patents on methods and procedures make about as much sense
as a patent on the above. The only people I see benefiting from such patents
are trolls who accumulate patents for no other purpose than using them for
litigation and the lawyers who litigate them.

For everyone else, they're a drag on the market.

Trusted computing:
It's not about, "Can you trust your computer?"
It's all about, "Can your computer trust you?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

a computer isn't "just mental"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 12:55 AM EDT
A computer is nothing more than switches flipping very rapidly. Those switches
may be patentable, but how we use those switches to create results is not.

Imagine needing permission from a patent holder, just to turn on all the lights
in the building, or to turn lights on and off to make the letters
on a skyscraper. Really, it's accomplished with just switches. There may be a
patent on the switches themselves, but you are allowed to configure them for any
effect you desire.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Bilski oral arguments - Groklaw member webster attended
Authored by: jeevesbond on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 01:06 AM EDT

I like this for a mental leap:

Mr. Hansen had the last word. He had had time to think. [...] He asked the court to think of "information as physical." It is therefore tangible and can be transformed.

To which the answer is, quite simply: 'except that it's not physical.'

With an optional kick up the bum for being an idiot. Following his argument: 1 + 1 = 2 is a transformation of two ones into two, but how does allowing patents on maths help society?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Bilski oral arguments - Groklaw member webster attended
Authored by: Sparhawk on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 01:43 AM EDT
Why would you want to patent this type of process? So that you can get paid for
you "innovation" as you were the first to develop the concept. This is
usually in relation to a product that you can market and sell (e.g. a machine, a
computer program), but how would you market and sell this product?
How would you police the use of the product, will we end up with a new
Microsoft, that has the ability to walk into any company and demand to audit
your books to make sure you are not using their patent?

If Bill Gates had a cent for every time Windows crashed... Oh wait, he does.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Progressive approximation
Authored by: tknarr on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 03:39 AM EDT

There's a simple reason legal things seem to go haywire, eg. the patent system. It's that the legal system works by successive approximation, and that produces false results.

The canonical example is showing that 2 equals 4. Take a right triangle with legs 1 unit long. We know that the hypotenuse's length is the square root of 2 units. But if you approximate it by only moving along a grid you have to travel 2 units to get from one end of the hypotenuse to the other, covering the length of each leg in turn. Now, divide the grid in half. You now need to follow 4 1/2-unit legs to get from one end to the other, still 2 units of distance. But in a sense this new path is closer to the actual length of the hypotenuse than the original. The error, the area between the actual straight line and the path you follow, is now half what it was before. You can keep doing this, reducing the error to less than any arbitrary value however small, and the distance you travel following only grid lines remains 2 units. But, but, but. At some point the error becomes so small it's negligible, our grid-line-following approximation is so close to the true hypotenuse that they're for all intents and purposes the same. But our approximation is 2. So the length of the hypotenuse must be 2 as well, since it's for all intents and purposes the same as our approximation. So the square root of 2 must be 2. Now, we know that the square root of N, times itself, is N, so the square root of 2 times itself must equal 2 as well. But the square root of 2 is 2, so 2 times 2 must equal 2. But arithmetic tells us that 2 times 2 equals 4. So since both 2 and 4 are equal to the same thing, they must be equal to each other and 2 equals 4.

The law does the same thing. Starting from case A, it's argued that case B is close enough to be identical. And then that case C is close enough to B to be identical. And this develops into a long chain, and eventually you have something radically different from A being treated as identical to A because it's all but identical to the last element in the chain. No sanity check is ever done on the results.

Fortunately the Bilski patent claims seem to be so far beyond the pale that even the courts seem to finally be realizing that this just can't be right.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe one way around this
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 05:39 AM EDT
is to assert that, since the patent is merely about an idea and that a patent
only covers the precise system patented (else you could not patent a better
moustrap because "mousetrap" is patented), you used a different
process to achieve the result: your own idea.

It's completely different from theirs because your personal quale are different
and your thought processes different.

And we all know that you cannot patent the RESULT, but the method. Results are
controlled with copyrights.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Information is *NOT* physical
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 06:19 AM EDT
Information is abstract - the *storage* medium of information may be physical
(the brain, 0s and 1s on a computer) but the information itself is not.

Even there, the storage is a perfectly natural phenomenon - the brain is
certainly natural, and the response of iron oxide when an electrical field is
applied to it is perfectly natural.


[ Reply to This | # ]

I think this approach is all wrong.
Authored by: billyskank on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 06:46 AM EDT
The judges seem to be asking about whether something should be patentable, and
trying to find where to draw the line between things that should and shouldn't

There is no "should" in this matter. Patents are a human contrivance;
there is no law in nature that says anybody should be granted a monopoly in this

If we accept this premise, then we can look at the matter with clear thinking.
The question then becomes not "should this thing be patentable," but
rather "is it beneficial for this thing to be patented?"

Because once you stop accepting that anybody has a right to a patent on
anything, you can start addressing the question of whether we want to grant a
patent on something or not. And that question boils down to:

Is it better that this thing be patented?


Better for whom?

Then the REAL question emerges:

Whom do we WANT to benefit?

Unfortunately, these questions are way beyond the scope of a court hearing. It
is for the legislature to answer these questions.

It's not the software that's free; it's you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reading on slashdot an idea formed
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 07:15 AM EDT
One poster asked "why is a bunch of geeks thinking up stuff and patenting
it a bad thing?". The respondant I read said something like "because
to make anything from it, more inventive steps would be needed. If they'd
invented technology, this would not be true".

And I thought about that answer.

Maybe if you have been hit by a patent troll you can turn round and say
"that doesn't work, so how can you patent something that doesn't work. And
the reason why I know it doesn't is that that doesn't work without <these>
that aren't in the patent.".

Really, you can't patent something that doesn't work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Information as physical"??
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 07:25 AM EDT

Mr. Hanson had the last word. He had had time to think. Without a barrage of questions, he had come up with the expression to save his patent. He asked the court to think of "information as physical." It is therefore tangible and can be transformed.

That's the sillies thing I've heard this week. Information by its very nature is mental, intangible. A particular expression of information can be tangible, for example a printout of a spreadsheet or a book of instructioins (and therefore IMHO falls under copyright law rather than patent law), but information in its raw form exists purely in one's mind.

"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Data", "Information" and transformation
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 07:54 AM EDT
Should we not differentiate between "data" and

Data is a set or measurments or facts (in non technical terms). So, air
temperature and pressure readings are data.

Information what we deduce from the data, so, a weather forecast is

So I think you can transform "data" into "Information" but
you cannot really transform "information". You simply have data or
data that has been through a previous trasformation.

Why is this important, because I think we are hitting a transition between the
physical (data) world and the intellectual or mental (information) world.

From my point of view any transformation of data into information can at least
technically be done mentally and that cannot be patented.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patents vs Trade Secrets
Authored by: halfhuman on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 07:56 AM EDT
I thought the original point of patents was to get rid of trade secrets---the
king allowed you to claim exclusive right to use an invention for a finite time,
on condition that you published enough details for others also to implement the
invention when your patent expired.

By that logic, anything that you invent that others could profitably copy can be

The difficulties seem to arise when this admittedly vague characterisation is
used to make law and policy.

The intent was to stimulate commerce by reducing the role of trade secrets.
People who make products with secret recipes and processes benefit from keeping
them scarce---the profit margin can be large. On the other hand, the rest of us
benefit when the products are not scarce.

Patents are supposed to solve this conundrum. They're a trade-off between
private gain and public good. They worked OK until (1) they started living too
long (but should pills and their containers have patents with equally long
lives?), (2) the effort of reproducing at least some inventions (code, drugs)
became extremely low, and (3) the USPTO started accepting patents (and trade
marks and names) on things that were already in existence.

This is a real problem. It won't go away, even if the USPTO and US courts revert
to old standards of novelty and non-obviousness---it fixes (3), but not (1) and
(2). So it is pleasant to hear of such a lively debate and such keen interest
from judges.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Example of the So Called Method
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 09:36 AM EDT
“enabling the sale of a commodity taking into consideration the supply and the
weather rather than just the price.”

I have a store. I have 10 umbrellas. I see that it is going to be raining a
boatload of water very shortly. I mark the umbrella prices UP. When it pours
rain, I sell all of the umbrellas at a nice profit.

I have a store. I have 150 umbrellas. I see that it is going to be raining a
boatload of water very shortly. I mark the umbrella prices DOWN. When it pours
rain, I sell all of the umbrellas, still at a profit, and clear out the
inventory of old umbrellas.

This business method is ancient. This business method is obvious. This business
method is used around the world everyday.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 09:51 AM EDT
Information cannot be physical... If I have some information and give it to you,
then we both have that information... if it were physical, then by my giving it
to you, I would no longer have it...

[ Reply to This | # ]

He'd had time to think...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 10:24 AM EDT
... but not very well. "Think of information as physical"? Um, why?
Because it would be convenient for your case if the judges think that way?
That's not a good enough reason for a court of law.

I mean, isn't this like SCO telling Kimball, "Think of us as owning the


[ Reply to This | # ]

The Bilski oral arguments - Groklaw member webster attended
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 11:14 AM EDT
I'll have to laugh if the court buys into patentability
of mental processes. At that point, all of the US Congress,
and anyone else who tries to convince others to agree with
them will be in trouble. Somehow I don't think any US
Congressman or attorney would be happy to be served with
papers saying that they had infringed on someones patented
argument style and are being sued.

To me its really simple. If I can't use any of my five
senses to observe an instance of the device, then it is
not patentable. I also think that a working demonstration
should be required, as it was in the past. In this day
and age there is no reason not to provide a working
demonatration somewhere.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Bilski oral arguments - Groklaw member webster attended
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 02:24 PM EDT
"information as physical"

can thoughts be enslaved?
are thoughts faster than the speed of light?
does "information" have entropy?
will "information" rust and decay?

[ Reply to This | # ]

In re: Microsoft v. AT&T before the US Supreme Court
Authored by: Superbiskit on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 02:50 PM EDT
IANAL, so it takes some gall to disagree with the Supremes. However, I must do so.

The cited case includes the following analysis:
As to the first question, no one in this litigation argues that software can never rank as a “component” under §271(f). The parties disagree, however, over the stage at which software becomes a component. Software, the “set of instructions, known as code, that directs a computer to perform specified functions or operations,” Fantasy Sports Properties, Inc. v., Inc., 287 F. 3d 1108, 1118 (CA Fed. 2002), can be conceptualized in (at least) two ways. One can speak of software in the abstract: the instructions themselves detached from any medium. (An analogy: The notes of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony.) One can alternatively envision a tangible “copy” of software, the instructions encoded on a medium such as a CD-ROM. (Sheet music for Beethoven’s Ninth.) AT&T argues that software in the abstract, not simply a particular copy of software, qualifies as a “component” under §271(f). Microsoft and the United States argue that only a copy of software, not software in the abstract, can be a component.
The analogy is, more properly, to a case where someone sends a score of Beetoven's Ninth to a third-party, who then simply xeroxes many duplicates. The infringer is directly the copyist; however, it is hard to see why the party sending the original did not induce the infringement.

It may be noted that both the Supremes' analysis and my own comment are properly copyright infringement, rather than patents. But they made it first. So there!

Cetero censeo Collegium SCO esse delendam.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patenting the playability of music
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 03:36 PM EDT

Perhaps someone should apply for a patent on playing music on an instrument. When that's refused, ask:

    Why is it that software combined with a computer is patentable when music combined with an instrument is not?
What does running software on a computer provide that is so valuable in comparison?
    What does the combination of software on a computer provide that music on an instrument does not?
    What does the combination of music on an instrument provide that software on a computer does not?
Considering you have software on a computer that simulates music combined with the hardware to produce that music, Software on a computer - in this instance - is equal to music on an instrument.

If you create software to play a piece of music - Beethoven's Ninth - on a computer, is this patentable?

If you write down the music to play a piece of music - Beethoven's Ninth - with your fingers on a piano, is this patentable?

If the software is patentable - thereby patenting an act on a device, then why is playing on a piano not patentable - thereby patenting an act on a device?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Mr. Hanson hits the nub
Authored by: DMF on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 05:08 PM EDT
While I disagree with Bilski's position, Mr. Hanson hit the subject right on the head with his final comment. For software and business processes to be patentable - indeed, for patents to have much relevance at all in the Information Age - information must be considered as a physical entity. It's the only way to apply current laws and policy.

Unfortunately for Bilski et al., that step once taken makes completely irrelevant State Street's principle that a patentable process must be embodied in a physical device. (Some day, though, I'd like to ask that court why the human brain should not be considered a "physical device".) The only difference, then, between a patentable and an unpatentable abstract process is the presence or absence of a filled-out application form.

I hope the Court takes Mr. Hanson's proposal seriously and thinks about the ramifications. It may be just the thing we need to get back some sanity in the patent process.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bright and Clear
Authored by: overshoot on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 06:05 PM EDT
No, not the line the Court wanted.

What comes through all of this to me is that the courts are Constitutionally prohibited from dealing in abstract matters and broad questions of policy; the must restrict themselves to actual cases before them. (Thus the dictum that "hard cases make bad law.")

The broader issues, the big picture, trading off conflicting objectives, is supposed to be left to Congress, or at least refined in debates among scholars in the law.

That hasn't happened. We can argue over just how we came to this point, who should have done what, etc. but in the end the fact staring at us is this: the parties who properly should have taken up questions of patent policy have dropped the ball. They've shirked their responsibilities and dropped the mess in the Court's lap -- and the Court isn't prepared to deal with it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Bilski oral arguments - Groklaw member webster attended - Updated: RFD went too
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 06:10 PM EDT
Information is abstract, it does not exist in a physical form. If it takes a
physical form then that is a representation of the information, not the
information itself.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Indian NewsPick On Topic
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 06:44 PM EDT
It's at the bottom of the NP column as I type so here's the link

If I read the story right, the Indian Parliament had already said "no way can you patent mathematics". Now a clever suggestion has arisen, and it has a familiar odour about it. If you use a non-patentable algorithm to perform a particular transformation of given data sets to achieve a specified class of result, then that method may be patentable as a "technical process".

This self-confessed Luddite believes patents should be issued only for physical objects, and an application must be accompanied by a working example. That would stop Pharma from patenting new drugs before they found out how to make them. It would relegate software to the copyright domain. But a designer of eg. Yoruba keyboards might be able to choose between a design copyright, or a mechanical patent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

While this is interesting, it does nothing to address the Prior Art issue
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Friday, May 09 2008 @ 10:13 PM EDT

And that is the elephant in the room. In a study I did using the USPTO.GOV
database, over 90% of the patents had sufficient prior art, that they should
never have been issued. Until the Patent Office is able to properly address this
issue, bad patents will continue to be issued.


[ Reply to This | # ]

The Bilski oral arguments Audio Recordings
Authored by: dio gratia on Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 12:11 AM EDT
There are three new file links found through the search link for CAFC oral argument recordings given in the body of the article,
2007-1130- 1.mp3
2007-1130- 2.mp3
2007-1130- 3.mp3
The -1.mp3 is identical to the previous 2007-1130.mp3, and is dated 10/1/2007. The remaining two are dated 5/8/2008, and are of superior audio quality. The first file is approximately 56 MB, the second two are 63 and 6 MB respectively.

(A simple search term is "in re Bilski" and is placed in the Caption dialog box.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Bilski oral arguments - Josh Sarnoff PIJIP Blog
Authored by: dio gratia on Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 01:31 AM EDT
En Banc Federal Circuit Addresses Patentable Subject Matter in In re Bilski

[ Reply to This | # ]

Eco & Chomsky & Lakoff Should Have Been An Expert Witness
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 10:23 AM EDT

I am surprised that neither Umberto Eco and/or Noam Chomsky and/or George Lakoff were brought into court as an expert witness on language.

After all that what this appears to be all about language obfuscation;that is, FRAMING words to make them appear to be something that they are not (reminds me of SCO's rendering of what words mean in the SCO versus Novell court case)

FRAMING works via repetition. Repeat a "lie" enough times and it becomes the truth - they hope.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this quote correct
Authored by: Ninthwave on Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 07:09 PM EDT
"Mr. Hanson had the last word. He had had time to think. Without a barrage
of questions, he had come up with the expression to save his patent. He asked
the court to think of "information as physical." It is therefore
tangible and can be transformed. Probably just like a baseball to a pea. The
hearing adjourned."

Ok I give up these people are stupid what part of the social contract gave them
the right to make this stupidity up and try to have it enforced on me. Is the
contract getting to the point of being null and void.

I was, I am, I will be.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Time must over-rule patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 10:32 AM EDT
If we start from Arthur C Clarke's quotation: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. , we soon realize that the passage of time in an advancing society such as ours must be allowed to over-rule the granting of patents. There will be occurrences where what seemed to be magic in the past, and hence considered appropriate for the protection of patents, with the passage of time become merely logical outcomes of physical laws, and hence no longer patentable.

At this time, I would suggest that most composition of matter patents fall into this category. In terms of software and business process patents, it may be that 10 years ago a lot of people thought it was magic to implement anything in this field on a computer, most people probably do not regard it as magic anymore. Not that most people could implement the idea in question, but it could be explained to them in such a matter that anyone would agree that it is obviously possible. There is no reason to grant patents to the obvious.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )