decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
He refused to answer a Judge! | 267 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I have to wonder....
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 06:59 PM EST

If USPTO Lawyer Nathan Kelly truly believes that:

    abstract is something that can be done entirely in the human mind or with pencil and paper
then I have to wonder what kind of software Kelly envisions could not be done by human mind with pencil and paper.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks Webster!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 07:07 PM EST

Still enjoy your particular style of authorship.

Thanks for taking the time to put in an appearance and report.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some progress
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 07:18 PM EST
At least *one* Federal Circuit judge is listening to the Supreme Court's rulings
on the limitations of patents.

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Washington - such a beautiful city
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 07:37 PM EST

Been there many times.

As to the court, they have a vested interest in Patents. So don't expect anything. The big question is will this be appealed to the top, and if it is, will the Supreme Court take it up.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggg!!!
Authored by: jvillain on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 08:25 PM EST
Alice's patents describe specific ways a computer is configured to run the company's trading platform, and contain detailed flow charts describing the process, Moore said. The Alice patents are "so far" from an abstract idea, she said.

This is the stupidest thing I have ever read on Groklaw and believe me SCO's lawyers and witnesses said some truly stupid things.

Flow charts? "Take a number" -> "Add a number" -> "Get answer"

Please send my patent for addition to my home address.

Reconfigures the computer? FAIL. First I really doubt she is about to describe is "reconfiguring" the computer. Even if it did what are the odds that their software reconfigures it rather than a library some one wrote or the BIOS or drivers all with their own patents and copyrights? Oh their software calls those libraries? Using the API or ABI that the libraries provide right?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Software patents
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 08:50 PM EST

In the previous topic, "Judge Robart in Seattle Grants Microsoft's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment", I have just added a comment at the bottom of the page dissecting the judge's ruling. The ruling involved an arcane subject, and it is likely few would understand the implications of the judge's ruling. I think my comment may be a contribution overall to the debate so I wanted bring it to the attention of other Groklaw members who have been involved in developing or critiquing Groklaw's official stand on software patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Being complex does not make it patentable
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 09:37 PM EST
Most here will agree that software is maths but everyone should agree that an
algorithm is maths.

We have also heard some judges believe that an algorithm needs to be disclosed
for the patent to be valid.

Sadly, anyone can spend some effort and draw a flow chart defining an existing
bank process of calculating payments and keeping track of a mortgage taking
repayment risks into account. Something that has occurred manually for eons.
Such a flow chart can be very complex and may have required considerable effort,
but nothing has been invented, only documented.

What i fail to understand is how is it that by spending this effort to draw the
flow chart and adding some nice words to a patent documents, suddenly a patent
is granted on a bank managing a mortgage. Then a judge comes along with a
presumption that a patent is always valid and makes statements that effort =
invention.

Effort and timing can = a successful product but does not automatically equate
to an invention. If our legal eagles believe that effort always = invention, the
game is lost.

Also i don't believe anybody got a patent for the concept of a motorized vehicle
and in the same way, nobody should get a patent for a driver-less motorized
vehicle, regardless of the effort they spend developing one. They can possibly
apply for patents on individual components which they integrate but not on the
whole. But even then, for example, much of the vision detection system and their
mathematical algorithms already exist and have existed for years and years. The
very low computational power of older computers would result in vision detection
product being priced out of the market before one begins.

Locking up a complete industry because someone has spent some effort integrating
maths into now rather capable computers, resulting in a cost effective manner,
is not an invention, it's just good market timing based on well priced building
blocks.

But again the mantra we have seen in this En Banc that effort = innovation
doesn't inspire any confidence in the law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hey Judge Moore! Check this out!
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 11:33 PM EST
Oh sorry, it is gone now.

It was a really bright cloud that looked
like it had a Ravens logo on it!

It was really cool looking. I know you
would have been impressed. Oh well, at least
you have those really cool flowcharts. They
must be awesome, cooler than any of my flowcharts,
I'm sure.

If I find a really shiny rock, I'll let you know,
especially if it looks like a Raven.

Have a nice day!

"Only a few find the way;
some don't recognize it when they do;
some don't ever want to."


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 11:41 PM EST

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw's Report from the CLS Bank v. Alice En Banc Hearing at the Federal Circuit ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 03:28 AM EST
The whole thing goes off the rails from the moment the circuit granted the
appeal including the question

"when, if ever, does the presence of a computer in a claim lend patent
eligibility to an otherwise patent-ineligible idea?"

Um, NEVER.

[ Reply to This | # ]

He refused to answer a Judge!
Authored by: amster69 on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 04:37 AM EST
Judge Dyk then asked if there was a way to do "end of day netting"
transactions without using the patents. The lawyer for Alice, Adam Perlman,
refused to answer. He said he did not want to answer that question.

He can do that? Just plain refuse? What a system!

---
Bob

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: complex_number on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 05:34 AM EST
Don't forget to reference the item in question


---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?

[ Reply to This | # ]

a person who thought of a XXX without designing one
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 05:35 AM EST
How is this related to science fiction and all the awesome ideas blurted
incessantly by some authors, who may not have the time, incentive and money to
make it into a semi-working prototype?

How close do you need to be the real McCoy to make it patentable?



---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Abstract ideas, and computer implementations
Authored by: macliam on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 06:44 AM EST
A salient point to bear in mind is that there are no recognized exceptions to
patentability for mathematics as such, or software as such, or business
processes as such. The usual exceptions are judicially created by Supreme Court
decisions going back about 150 years, and are recognized for laws of nature,
natural phenomena (or products?), and abstract ideas.

In Bilski v. Kappos, the Supreme Court declined to create an exception for
business processes as such. In so far as mathematics is excluded from
patentability, it is on the grounds of being an abstract idea. But case law
would need to develop the extent of this exception.

What is an abstract idea? If one accepted Berkeley, then the exception is a
dead letter, because, according to him, there is no such thing as an abstract
idea. My understanding (of the original meaning, and as discussed by
philosophers) is that an abstract idea is an idea abstracted from ideas or real
world phenomena and situations that constitute instances of that idea. The idea
would thus be arrived at through a process of abstraction, in much the same was
as an abstract or synopsis is abstracted from an academic paper or legal
opionion. Pace Berkeley, a triangle is an abstract idea that is abstracted from
numerous instances of geometric figures, such as might be drawn on the sand, or
occurring as architectural features, etc. In mathematics, the abstract idea of
a group is abstracted from various algebraic structures with the common property
that the structure includes a binary operation that is associative and has an
identity element and inverses. A mathematical formula suggesting near optimal
curing times for rubber would be abstracted from observations of natural
phenomena that occur during the curing process. Similarly a method of computing
an alarm limit in processes involving catalytic conversion would be an
abstraction from observations of potential dangers or breakdowns in industrial
processes.

One could argue that if a PHOSITA, or a person with capabilities that are not
exceptional (e.g.,photographic memory) can hold an idea in her mind, and
implement it, using at most pencil and paper to record intermediate steps and
calculations, and especially if that idea can be described in textbooks and
taught to students as a method that can be practiced using at most pencil and
paper, then it almost certainly qualifies as an abstract idea. Surely the
shadow transactions of the Alice patent, where the true accounts are balanced at
the end of the working day, are manifestations of an abstract idea.

One might ponder as to whether or not software performing the encoding and
decoding of images at issue in the Microsoft v. Motorola case discussed in the
previous Groklaw article on Judge Robart's ruling are abstract ideas in the
above sense.

But if one has a patent that claims a computer-implemented invention based on an
abstract idea (in the above sense) the decision in Mayo v. Prometheus suggests
that one should ask whether or not the claimed 'invention' adds 'enough' to the
abstract idea. On this line of reasoning, the claim does not satisfy the
requirements of Section 101 on the grounds that it is computer-implemented, if
the computer implementation contains no more than merely conventional steps. I
note that the Patent Office lawyer, Nathan Kelley, is reported to have said that
'simply using a reconfigured computer to run an abstract idea does not make it
patentable'. This, I suggest, is different from the assertion with the word
'simply' omitted. A claim for a computer-implemented implementation of an
abstract idea should not preempt all computer-implemented implementations of
that abstract idea (which would seem to be the message of both Gottschalk v.
Benson and Parker v. Flook). Thus Supreme Court decisions would suggest that
one needs evidence of an 'inventive' application of the abstract idea, and of
claim limitations to the scope of what would otherwise be an overbroad claim, to
pass muster with section 101 and move on to the requirements of sections 102 and
103. Such a line of reasoning would be anathema to Judges Rader and Newman,
based on their opinions, and their adherence to the different principles laid
down by Judge Rich.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw's Report from the CLS Bank v. Alice En Banc Hearing at the Federal Circuit ~pj
Authored by: Doghouse on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 07:43 AM EST
International Business Machines Corp., which has received the most U.S. patents for the past 20 years, and a lobbying group whose members include Microsoft Corp. and Apple Inc., said software needs legal protection because it contributes to the nation’s economy.

Classic General Bullmoose territory ("What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA"). IBM, Microsoft and other large companies like large patent portfolios because it gives them leverage and negotiating power. It has nothing to do with innovation, the Suits and Bean-Counters having long-since replaced technologists in any role that matters at both companies. I know (having worked for them for decades) that IBM will happily patent any bright idea its employees come up with, no matter what the subject matter - IBM has patents on things from traffic control to sex toys. More is most definitely perceived as better.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Size is important" - Judge Kimberly A. Moore
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 10:49 AM EST
Never mind the quality, feel the width!

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Federal Circuit Judges
Authored by: albert on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 02:55 PM EST
Here is a 'table' of backgrounds, highly condensed: I left out things like honors and awards. A quick perusal of the Supreme Court justices highlights a few generalizations:

1. SCOTUS justices have no technical degrees.
2. SCOTUS justices have no discernable IP backgrounds.

IMO, the problem with the Federal Circuit IS their IP backgrounds. Recent SCOTUS decisions seem to be more rational regarding patents. Logic seems to suggest loading the Court responsible for patent cases with patent experts. Logic just doesn't work in this case. Note to Justice Scalia: You are perfectly qualified to hear patent cases!


Federal Circuit-Judges
Name, Age, Education, Background
Rader (Chief), 64, BA-English-'74;JD-'78, Prof-teaching IP law; author-IP law.
Newman, 86, BA-'47;MA-'48;PhD-'52;LLB-'58, patent atty.
Lourie, 78, PhD(chemistry)-'65;JD-'70, IP law.
Dyk, 76, AB-'58;LLB-'61, private practice; author-patents.
Proust, 62, BS-'73;MBA-'75;JD-79;LLM-'74, NRLB; IRS.
Moore, 45, BSEE-'90;MS-'91;JD-'94, IP law; author-patent litigation.
O'Malley, 57, JD-'82, patent law
Reyna, 61, BA-'75;JD-'78, private practice; int'l trade expert.
Wallach, 64, BA-'73;JD-'76;LLB-'81, private practice
Senior Judges
Mayer, 72, West Point;JD(?)'71, private practice.
Plager, 82, AB-'52;JD-'58, Prof-teaching law.
Clevenger, 76, BA-'59;LLB-'66, private practice.
Schall, 76, BA-'66;JD-'69, private practice; DOJ.
Bryson, 75, AB-'69;JD-'73, DOJ.
Linn, 76, B.EE-'65;JD-'69, IP law; USPTO (examiner) '65 to '68.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Extracanonical thread? Thoughts on the audio
Authored by: macliam on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 03:33 PM EST

The News Picks includes a link to the Court's website where an MP3 file of the oral argument is made available.

Although this is a 'news pick', maybe it deserves its own thread?

My impressions from following CAFC decisions in recent years, is that Judge Moore would be a potential swing vote. Many of the posters on blogs like PatentlyO do not seem to have a kind word for her, regarding her as a judge who cannot be relied upon to vindicate the rights of patent holders. At least, that is the impression that I have gleaned. She seems to have interrupted right from the beginning about the apparent detail of the system claims (UNIX workstations and the like.) She was the fence-sitter in ACLU v. Myriad, who came down in favour of Myriad. She interrupted right at the beginning of the oral argument, and I was frustrated that she would not allow the CLA attorney to get a word in edgeways. Was her mind made up irrevocably beforehand, or was she putting the Alice case strongly to seek to elicit arguments that might possibly change her opinion?

The concluding words of Mr Perry in rebuttal (obviously referring to Alice Corporation), as accurately as I can transcribe them:

There is no computer that they have invented. They don't have a product. They are trolling for royalties. Thank you, your honor.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Too bad we can't link software patents to sexual assault
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 04:51 PM EST
Then NO would mean NO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

There are companies that spend tremendous assets -- money, time -- to develop real things
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 11:39 PM EST
And then there is Interval Research.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The real reason for Federal Circuit rehearings
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 05:54 AM EST
appears to be to collect more reasons to make the Supreme Court toss the whole
nonsense with vehemence.

It's annoying enough to see the repeated game of "the constitution's
wording says x but we really think its authors meant y". But at least
there is the excuse of a time difference.

The Federal Circuit, in contrast, has a back-and-forth with the Supreme Court.
And here the game is "the Supreme Court's wording says <<You got it
wrong again, knuckleheads>>, but I think they mean we really got it again,
knock on wood". How long are they going to keep up this game of "we
can handle more cases than you can, so we get to set the rules, and you can only
overturn a tiny fraction"?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Argh, this is so disappointing.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 10:20 AM EST
The argument was spectacularly interrupted by the twelfth judge of the Court, Judge Kimberly A. Moore. "How can this not be patentable? Look at these long elaborate flow charts! Look at this list of hardware specifications: controllers, a Unix Sparc Station, data storage, connectors ...!" She was whole-hog into the patentability of the technology. It is too vast and complex not to be. It is hard to call her clueless when she is one of the ones who makes the clues.

Judges with no clue what software is or how it works, are rubber-stamping the patents that are strangling the U.S. software industry by supporting patentability of basic mathematical functions. They believe flowcharts are innovative, and that software "reconfigures" a computer. Heaven help us.

I wonder if this handful of judges can even comprehend the magnitude of damage they are doing the U.S. economy. The consequences of their stupidity are going to be felt for decades.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not an "Abstract Idea"?
Authored by: macliam on Sunday, February 10 2013 @ 03:54 PM EST

I took a look through the '720 patent, to be found at http://www.google.com/patents/US7 149720

There are 157 pages in all.

The claims determine the bounds of the patent, but one might as well work through from the beginning. There are 4 pages of front matter, followed by 117 pages of figures.

Figure 1 depicts a circle of (what later turn out to be) 'stakeholders', that can interact with 'Processing Units'. The stakeholders include 'counterparty guarantors', 'regulators', 'product ordering parties' etc., and even include 'miscellaneous parties'.

Then comes the diagram (Figure 2a) that apparently wowed Judge Moore with its wondrous technical complexity. A miscellaneous array of what might be telephones, fax machines, personal computers with modems connected to a back office system which (according to the details of thelater specification) might consist of three Sun workstations running SunOS networked together. The realisation that one could run a financial information system on a small network of workstations must have represented an impressive conceptual advance fully worthy of patent protection in the early 1990s! But wait, there is more! The specification subsequently teaches that, whilst such a system might be 'broadly indicative', it would also be possible to implement the system in an 'alternative configuration' where each stakeholder has an individual workstation, and where the workstations are networked to each other. Indeed a network diagram for six such stakeholders could have the structure of a complete graph on six vertices, as taught in Figure 2b. Amazing technical stuff! No wonder at least one of the CAFC Judges seemed so impressed! How could such a system not be patentable?

With regard to technical disclosure, it is all pretty well downhill from here. The next diagram portrays the data processing system INVENTCO (a name apparently lifted from a later Walt Disney film called Meet the Robinsons, as I discovered on googling on 'inventco' to discover if there was an Alice Corporation product sold under that name). The patent discloses that INVENTCO has components with names like M-INVENTCO, I-INVENTCO, AXSCO, VIRPRO, INVENTCO SYSTEM #1, INVENTCO SYSTEM #2 etc. M-INVENTCO in turn has components such as CONTRACT APP #1 and MARKETS COLLECTION #2. CONTRACT APP #1 even has components like PROCESS #1, PROCESS #2 and PROCESS #9.

There follow diagrams specific to the Examples later expounded in the specification. These include flow charts with steps like "Select counterparty bid prices from short list and queue order" and decision boxes like "Matured contract processing required?" A minority of such diagrams seem to disclose actual calculations with financial variables:

  • PRICE(SID) = CALC_FUNC(PRICEFUNC(SID),PAYFUNC,PAYPARAM)
  • MT_DAY = PMAT - CUR_DATE

Then follow 43 pages of what appear to be printouts of a heterogeneous assortment of financial records. Working through these the thought occurred to me that Alice Corporation have apparently been granted a monopoly on financial information systems software for US-based banks, since banks could not perform the transactions preempted by the patent with financial information systems other than that provided by or licensed by the patentee. Suppose that the patentee decides not to license the invention, but sells computer products that turn out to be buggy and reliable. What recourse do the banks and other financial institutions have against the holder of the monopoly?

Following innumerable pages of these sample financial records one reaches the body of the specification. The section on 'Background Art' is a platitudinous essay on 'risk' and risk management. It is then asserted that 'management techniques for the "less tangible" forms of risk are in their infancy'. There follows a short paragraphs listing patents in the prior art.

The DISCLOSURE OF THE INVENTION

begins with what is surely a discussion of abstract principles of risk management, and descriptions of various types of transactions between stakeholders. The inventors seem proud of the fact that

in another preferred form, the invention provides that the phenomenon for an offered contract is specified such that the elemental entitlements for a range of outcomes are the same for each outcome.

This impressive technical achievement is then elucidated using the language of basic calculus. Apparently the data processing system can cater for situations in which financial variables x and y related by an equation of the form y = mx + b. (They return to this characteristic of the invention several times in later parts of the specification: presumably it adds a bit of technical spice to what otherwise would appear to be mundane descriptions of financial transactions.)

The patent does not attempt to claim an 'abstract' idea. How could it? Such a claim would not be eligible for a US patent, as everyone now seems to agree. However

Embodiments of the invention significantly advance the state-of-the-art of formulating and trading risk management contracts. Essentially this is achieved by a computing/telecommunications infrastructure that is capable of being accessed worldwide by any enterprise/individual having access to a computer and telephone network. Furthermore, a virtually infinite number and range of risk typescan be [sic] accommodated.

After a BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS we come onto a DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF A BEST MODE FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION. As mentioned before, the 'systems' configuration could consist of stakeholders interacting with an institution whose back office runs a network consisting of three Sun SPARC workstations. Or alternatively each stakeholder can have a workstation that is networked with those of the other stakeholders.

It is stated that 'the "virtual" level of the system 10 is termed INVENTCO'. One wonders whether or not the 'virtual' level of a 'system' qualifies as an 'abstract idea'. There follows a description of INVENTCO, M-INVENTCO, AXSCO, CONTRACT APPS and friends. This all seems to be at the level of processes somehow related to risk management and trading. There follow five examples following the history of financial interactions of one sort or another. The discussion is couched in terms of descriptions of financial trades, involving contract bid prices, discount rates, contract maturities and the like.

The third example is perhaps the most detailed at a technical level (ignoring the purely financial stuff divorced from computer-implementation). The programmer wishing to avail of the teaching of this particular patent could at least glean from it that certain transactions involving counterparties could be programmed using operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division applied to elements of associative arrays representing financial variables (prices, exchange considerations, payments) that are indexed by counterparty identifiers (represented by the variable SID). This example is probably the most technical part of the specification from a computer programming point of view. But would the programming techniques and structures disclosed to the PHOSITA be equally applicable in the other five examples of the Best Mode?

There is a Glossary of Agreed Terms. This does not appear to define the shadow credit record and shadow debit record that is central to the claims.

Finally we come to the claims. Claim 1 is to a 'data processing system', and requires a 'data storage unit', a 'computer' capable of 'receiving transactions', 'electronically adjusting' credit and debit records stored in the 'data storage unit' and 'generating instructions'. There is an explicit claim limitation: the 'instructions' must be 'irrevocable time-invariant obligations'.

Obviously a human working with pen and paper cannot infringe this claim, since infringement would require use of a computer capable of 'electronically adjusting' credit and debit records. But suppose that a human carried out the steps described in the claim, with the assistance of a PC with an Intel 80386 microprocessor, a 3.5 inch floppy disk to serve as a 'data storage unit', Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet software and WordPerfect word-processing software. Would the claim be infringed? Would the need to use at a minimum such basic home-office computing technology be sufficient to vouch for the fact that the claim is not drawn to an abstract idea?

This particular particular machine seems omnicapable for just about any sort of computerized risk-management scenario involving shadow records. It could be used where the transaction is 'linked to a share price' (claim 2), 'linked to a weather event' (claim 3), 'linked to a market event' (claim 4), 'involves the transfer of shares in financial or physical assets' (claim 5), 'involves a wager' (claim 6), 'involves the transfer of a commodity' (claim 7), 'arises out of a transaction involving money for goods, services, promises, credits or warrants' (claim 8), 'arises out of a collateralization payment obligation' (claim 21), 'wherein said period of time is part of a day' (claim 9), wherein said exchange institution is a 'credit card company' (claim 12), 'debit card company' (claim 13), 'bank' (claim 14), 'central bank' (claim 15) or is merely a 'guarantor offering credit to one or more parties involved in said exchange obligation' (claim 16). Moreover the particular machine has no problem dealing with transactions in which institutions operate in different time zones (claim 19). Maybe institutions might be interested in purchasing this super-flexible risk management system. But the Alice Corporation website only appears of offer a list of patents available for licensing.

Finally, I should point out that the US7725375 does look very similar, but includes as independent claim 39 a 'Beauregard' claim to a computer programming product comprising a computer-readable storage medium with computer-readable program code for implementing the invention.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gobsmacked by deliberate knowing ignorance
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 11 2013 @ 02:44 AM EST
Judge Dyk then asked if there was a way to do "end of day netting" transactions without using the patents.
Dear me, I used to do this sort of thing with pen and paper when I was working as a volunteer with Trade Aid. Part of what was required was summing up the day's transactions, which required simple maths.

Later I discovered the various other techniques, such as matrix computations, etc, which are again, mere mathematics; and of course the long-winded calculations - but mathematically simple - that an elementary knowledge of statistics requires.

All that adding a computer does, to this task, is add speed and sheer number of calculations.

The argument was spectacularly interrupted by the twelfth judge of the Court, Judge Kimberly A. Moore. "How can this not be patentable? Look at these long elaborate flow charts! Look at this list of hardware specifications: controllers, a Unix Sparc Station, data storage, connectors ...!" She was whole-hog into the patentability of the technology. It is too vast and complex not to be. It is hard to call her clueless when she is one of the ones who makes the clues.
Indeed! let us examine the subject matter again, shall we?

PJ has sent out the order. Go to the Federal Circuit for the en banc oral argument of CLS Bank v Alice Corporation. This is a Biggie for software patent haters, right up there with Bilski. This adventure will shorten the usual commute, one of the most wondrous a dutiful worker could have. If he eschews the speed and risks of the subway, as he often does, he can take the express bus down embassy row to Dupont Circle, then cross downtown on H Street to Madison Place on Lafayette Square situs of the Federal Circuit and the White House.
How could this algorithm
he can take the express bus down embassy row to Dupont Circle, then cross downtown on H Street to Madison Place on Lafayette Square
not be patentable?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Naive Judges
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 11 2013 @ 11:50 AM EST
Judge Kimberly A. Moore. "How can this not be patentable? Look at these
long elaborate flow charts! Look at this list of hardware specifications:
controllers, a Unix Sparc Station, data storage, connectors ...!"

OMG are the judges that make our patent law so utterly gullible that they are
snowed this easily? Whatever happened to the LEGAL STANDARD that requires that
it advance the state of the art, not just impress the judge with meaningless
fluff! These clowns would grant a patent on the retroencabulator!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw's Report from the CLS Bank v. Alice En Banc Hearing at the Federal Circuit ~pj Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 12 2013 @ 07:20 AM EST
Hi I have made a transcript of the oral arguments. Its rough but I'm working on
cleaning it up:

www.alatageneral.com/cls-v-alice-en-banc-oral-arguments.php

[ 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 )