-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Patent-Eligible Subject Matter in the United States - The Court of Appeals
Decision in In re Bilski

,----[ Quote ]
| Since the claims before it did not relate to any particular machine, the
| court did not address further what was required to meet the first of these
| options and in particular did not consider whether a general purpose computer
| when programmed could become “a particular machine or apparatus”.
|
| On the second option, the majority did attempt some guidance as to what it
| meant by “articles” that were to be the subject of transformation.
`----

http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/2008/Inre_Bilski.shtml

Bilski - What It Means, Part 3 - The Mayer Dissent & Some Intangibility
Questions

,----[ Quote ]
| In my view, the short answer is that Bilski isn't the last or best word, and
| that in time there will be further refinements. That may be too small a word,
| actually, but I read Bilski as leaving it to the Supreme Court to do anything
| new, useful and practical about software patents, if I might coin the phrase,
| while the US Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit stands on a very old dime
| in the meanwhile, while attempting to basically make it harder to patent
| mathematical "fundamental principles." The court doesn't want anyone to
| patent 1 + 1 = 2, in other words, because the whole world needs to be able to
| do that. But if you use 1 + 1 = 2 in a process that is patentable because
| it's tied to a particular machine and/or is transformative, that's fine with
| them. That's if I understand what the court wrote. Considering that patent
| lawyers and professors are still struggling with it, I'm guessing I don't yet
| fully.
`----

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...81109185020183


Recent:

USPTO does not like killing business method patents?

,----[ Quote ]
| The New York Times has an article about the recent Bilski decision. The USPTO
| has requested a change in the title of the article.
|
| [....]
|
| If Mrs Jennifer Rankin Byrne could point out where she sees the term computer
| in the Bilski decision, that would help to back her statement.
`----

http://stopsoftwarepatents.org/forum...method-patents


Reactions to the Bilski decision begin to roll in

,----[ Quote ]
| Not being a US patent attorney and not possessing any expertise in US patent
| law, I am not in a position to comment on the CAFC’s Bilski decision handed
| down yesterday. However, I do know a few people who are, so I have been in
| touch with them to get their reactions. Below is what I have had so far. I
| will continue to add to these until the beginning of next week (3rd/4th
| November will be the cut-off).
`----

http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Det...b-82dfc57a09b9


In regards to In re Bilski

,----[ Quote ]
| On the key question of when information becomes a machine, the ruling does
| provide some clues: “First, [...] the use of a specific machine or
| transformation of an article must impose meaningful limits on the claim's
| scope to impart patent-eligibility. [...] Second, the involvement of the
| machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be
| insignificant extra-solution activity.” For more on extra-solution activity,
| have a look at my law review article (PDF) that focuses heavily on the idea.
`----

http://ben.klemens.org/blog/arch/00000009.htm


US court narrows scope for business method patents

,----[ Quote ]
| "While looking for 'a useful, concrete and tangible result' may in many
| instances provide useful indications of whether a claim is drawn to a
| fundamental principle or a practical application of such a principle, that
| inquiry is insufficient to determine whether a claim is patent-eligible," it
| said.
`----

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11...iness_patents/


Bilski: Almost the Big One

,----[ Quote ]
| The big question is what effect, if any, this decision will have on the
| current referral of a “point of law” concerning software patents by the
| President of the European Patent Office (EPO) to the EPO “Enlarged Board of
| Appeal”, something I wrote about earlier this week. It would be ironic if, at
| a time when the US courts begin to move away from patenting software “as
| such”, the EPO started allowing precisely that through a relaxation of its
| own rules.
`----

http://www.computerworlduk.com/commu...4&entryid=1452


So are software patents dead or not?

,----[ Quote ]
| My opinion is that it's going to get harder and harder to patent anything. Of
| course there will be a big push back from business, so this won't happen over
| night, but I think the concept of patents will eventually disappear entirely.
`----

http://aplawrence.com/Opinion/business-method.html


US Court Throws Out Most Software Patents

,----[ Quote ]
| The IT Examiner also observes that "Microsoft has a problem" and that "Much
| of the patent portfolio of some of the world's biggest software companies has
| become worthless overnight, thanks to a ruling yesterday by the US patent
| court."
`----

http://blog.entchev.com/2008/10/31/u...s.aspx?ref=rss


Court Reshapes Patent Reform Debate

,----[ Quote ]
| In a ruling with huge implications for the technology sector, the U.S. Court
| of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Oct. 30 pure software or business
| method patents that are neither tied to a specific machine nor change
| something into a different state are not patentable.
`----

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Manageme...Reform-Debate/


In Huge Shift, Court Ruling Effectively Denies Software-Only Patent Rights

,----[ Quote ]
| The case originally centered on a patent for "a method of managing the risk
| of bad weather through commodities trading"—which falls more under
| the "business process" bucket, but the same ruling effectively makes
| patenting a specific software process impossible. The previous ruling allowed
| such patents, so long as computers were involved and the process produced
| a "useful, concrete, and tangible result." This ruling rejects that premise,
| favoring instead an older test that only allows patents for things involving
| an actual machine or a transformation of a tangible object into a different
| state.
`----

http://gizmodo.com/5072858/in-huge-s...-patent-rights


Professor Collins: In re Bilski: Tangibility Gone “Meta”

,----[ Quote ]
| Although they are both legitimate questions, this short comment addresses
| neither whether there is a legitimate statutory basis for this test nor
| whether Supreme Court precedent should be interpreted so as to mandate (or
| even support) this test. Rather, it focuses solely on the criteria that the
| court offers to draw the line between patentable and unpatentable
| transformations. The Federal Circuit has added a new twist to the tangibility
| test that has for many years played a role in determining patent-eligibility:
| the tangibility test has gone "meta." The tangibility of the formal data that
| is actually transformed by a method of processing information is not relevant
| to patent-eligibility, but the tangibility of the things that the data is
| about—the tangibility of the informational content of the data or the things
| to which the data refers—now appears to be dispositive.
`----

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008...sor-colli.html


Bilski: What It Means, Part 1 -- Red Hat on What It Means for FOSS

,----[ Quote ]
| means to everyone: You can't get patents any more on a pure mental process.
| You can no longer patent a process that you can think through all in your
| mind. In other words, abstract ideas are not patentable. There has to be
| either a particular machine or a transformation in the process. So
| pure "ideas" or "mental processes" are over. That means most business methods
| patents are no longer valid because they are outside the parameters of what
| is eligible for patenting. In simple terms, it means this:
|
| * * The End for the stupidest of the stupid patents.
|
| Yay! It means that the tide is turning. There could still be an appeal of
| Bilski, and even without one, there are ways to chip away at this decision's
| new standard for patentability, to try to get over the new turnstile, so to
| speak, and strategies on how to do that have begun already. I've spent the
| days since the decision issued researching for you, so I can explain Bilski
| to you. There is too much material for just one article. So, I'll break it up
| into parts. My purpose is to make sure you understand fully, so you can be
| helpful with your ideas and so you can explain this issue to others, so they
| understand what is involved for FOSS. If there are parts you don't
| understand, ask. If I don't know the answer, I can ask someone.
`----

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...81103134949355


US patent ruling bodes well for tech

,----[ Quote ]
| The case in question was rejected because the patent at issue was a process
| not tied to a "machine", which is one standard for patentability.
|
| [...]
|
| "The standard articulated in this case should limit the outrageous business
| method and software patents that we have recently seen, without undermining
| the incentive to innovate in these areas."
`----

http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/busine...2047897,00.htm


In re Bilski and the future of business method patents

,----[ Quote ]
| Duffy stressed that the patent at issue in State Street, the 1998 decision
| that gave the OK to software and business method patents, would be fine and
| dandy under the new test—it's just the test itself that changed. The court
| maintained the "core holding" of State Street, said Duffy, merely changing
| the "verbal formulation" required. (And the number of BM patents that will
| still be strong?—Many! Most! Almost all!)
`----

http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_p...i-decided.html


CLE: How to Draft Software Claims under Bilski

,----[ Quote ]
| Going forward, I do not believe that these limitations will have a
| significant impact on a skilled practitioner's ability to patent software
| innovations.
`----

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008...w-to-draf.html


Patent Court: You Can No Longer Patent Thin Air

,----[ Quote ]
| In essence, the ruling means that business ideas in and of themselves aren’t
| patentable. In addition to Amazon’s “one-click” patent, which is the concept
| of purchasing something via credit card by just clicking a single website
| link, Friendster’s patents on social networking also come to mind as being
| unpatentable based on this judgement. That patent covers a “system, method
| and apparatus for connecting users in an online computer system based on
| their relationships within social networks” and a “method of inducing content
| uploads in a social network,” amongst other claims.
`----


http://mashable.com/2008/10/30/patent-business-ideas/


Court limits 'business method' patents

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-30-15-45-15


Federal Circuit Enforces Limit on Business Method Patents

,----[ Quote ]
| The result: While the court did not categorically exclude business method
| patents, it held fast the idea that any method, whether business-related or
| not, must be tethered to a machine or some sort of physical transformation,
| says Stephen Maebius, a partner at Foley & Lardner.
`----

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/20...d-patents.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkkYRO4ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4XmwCfc+ZDaY/VJRjEEfQr5hcvDxeC
p18An07GXAT/UMPnXTuiCAsQvHwn4aMQ
=vpeK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----