Underseer should be happy - SCOTUS Patent limits

[Jimmy Higgins]

It looks like someone tried to patent how to settle a financial dispute with a computer. SCOTUS told them to fuck off.

CBC

The decision makes clear that to obtain a patent, a company's idea must actually improve how a computer functions or make other technical advancements. It could also help give technology firms a stronger defense against so-called patent trolls — companies that buy up patents and force businesses to pay license fees or face costly litigation.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I've patented talking about SCOTUS telling people to fuck off. You owe me $1000.

 

[NobleSavage]

It's still a mess. SCOTUSblog has a good write up: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/symposium-go-ask-alice-what-can-you-patent-after-alice-v-cls-bank/

I'll summarize: Alice the software patent holder lost. However, software patents are still legal if they pass a two part test: (1) determine if the claim at issue is directed toward an abstract idea; and (2) examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.

Of course this leads to a never ending rabbit hole on the definition of "abstract idea" and "inventive concept". At the end of the day it boils down to the skill of the drafter, what what the patent examiner had for lunch, and how much you are willing to spend in a legal fight.