|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, February 11 2013 @ 04:43 AM EST |
When we were discussing the Bilski patent, I said that this was another example
of an abstract idea on-a-computer. All the patent lawyers (my guess) laughed
hysterically because there were no computer claims in the patent.
However, the patent method was about hedging in the energy market. A database of
all the offers and all the potential customers' energy pattern and timing
requirements was created and complex mathematical analysis was carried out to
enable the method user to profit as a middleman by matching energy needs to
energy futures.
The method could only be carried out by a powerful computing system.
Hedging is a common financial form of risk management. '720 seems to be Bilski
energy market hedging, un-narrowed to general financial transactions, but with
added computers.
The court seemed much more aware of the financial system involved than I am.
They said it was commonplace before the patent was granted. So, the various
computer and communication systems are being offered as the best mode of
carrying out the commonplace financial activity. This time, there are a few
clues offered to one skilled in the software arts on how to write the software
for the best mode, but the process/method fails §101 because,
a) It is not novel
b) There is no additional utility over and above other modes of carrying out the
financial activity (being faster on a computer is not an inventive concept and
cannot be the invention).
It fails the judicial exceptions because the best mode (modes, since several
systems were proposed and noted as not exhaustive of modes) implemented an
abstract idea.
As The Supreme Court said in the Bilski case,
'Flook stands for the proposition that the prohibition against patenting
abstract ideas “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment” or adding “insignificant
postsolution activity.” Diehr'.
In Flook, the computers automatically adjusted the petrochemical process alarms
limits acted upon by the operators. In Bilski, the process presented potential
deals to the operators, but did not automatically make the energy deals. In this
patent, the computer and communication systems follow the 'stakeholders'
instructions on which deals to make, but do not autonomously make and manage
deals. In all three cases, the invention, itself, is responsible for
“insignificant postsolution activity.” It is the operators that make all the
decisions.
It's a fail on all counts except that it might, just, go a little way towards
PolR's requirement that the stated functions must be backed by explicit
implementing algorithms if they are not all within the skill of the art.
What am I saying? It's just a FAIL.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
