Drigg - Ubuntu news, tricks, stories, scoops, and more

http://www.groklaw.net – Pop some champagne! The Appeals Court decision [PDF] is in on Bilski: I'm still reading it, but on first quick reading, one thing is clear: it's a win! Eligible patent matter just got smaller. Here's a snip from the opening: We affirm the decision of the Board because we conclude that Applicants' claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and in doing so, we clarify the standards applicable in determining whether a claimed method constitutes a statutory "process" under § 101. This was an appeal against a rejection of a business methods patent, and the appeals court has now agreed with the rejection. At issue was whether an abstract idea could be eligible for patent protection. "Anything under the sun made by man" now means not just anything, but things *made* by man, "not to methods of organizing human activity," the court rules. Buh-bye business methods patents! And it ends like this: In short, the history of §101 fully supports the majority's holding that Bilski's claim does not recite patentable subject matter. Our decision does not reflect "legislative" work, but rather careful and respectful adherence to the Congressional purpose. That's on page 56. The rest of the 132-page ruling are three vigorous dissents, some believing the court is going too far and some thinking it didn't go far enough. I want to thank Red Hat most particularly for its wonderful amicus brief that it filed in this case. However, the court in footnote 23 does not go as far as one might have hoped, at least not in this case: Therefore, although invited to do so by several amici, we decline to adopt a broad exclusion over software or any other such category of subject matter beyond the exclusion of claims drawn to fundamental principles set forth by the Supreme Court. See, e.g., Br. of Amicus Curiae End Software Patents; Br. of Amicus Curiae Red Hat, Inc. at 4-7. We also note that the process claim at issue in this appeal is not, in any event, a software claim. Thus, the facts here would be largely unhelpful in illuminating the distinction between those software claims that are patent-eligible and those that are not not. And which is which? They just say that they don't know what the words "technological arts" and "technology" mean, as they are "both ambiguous and ever-changing". So they "continue to rely on the machine-or-transformation test as articulated by the Supreme Court. You'll find all that discussed on page 25. Read »