"It was interesting that the Court noted that the method claims did not "purport to improve the functioning the computer itself," perhaps suggesting that software that accomplished such improvements could be patent eligible."
Judge Thomas' statement could be interpreted as a round about way of saying that software that changes the hardware design is patentable because it creates a "new machine" but the Alice software does not create a new machine. The "new machine" argument is the rational basis for most software patents. Since no software changes a machine's design then all software patents based on the "new machine" concept are invalid. In future software patent cases attorneys trying to invalidate a software patent can use Judge Thomas's statements to invalidate a wide range of patents by refuting the "new machine" fallacy.
It is my impression that large part of the patent reform furor originates because of software patent abuse. During the House hearings on patent reform the committee involved said that patent reforms would not be limited to software patents. Any reforms would be applied to all patent types equally. That statement stirred up opposition to the various proposed patent reforms from a broad spectrum of industries which seem to be satisfied with the patent system as it stands.
An alternate approach to patent reform would be to abolish software patents entirely and do nothing to the rest of the patent industry. That might cut down the size of the political opposition to patent reform to a size that we could overcome.
Are there any statistics on what percentage of patent troll attacks are based on software patents versus attacks based on other types of patents?
From the article:
"It was interesting that the Court noted that the method claims did not "purport to improve the functioning the computer itself," perhaps suggesting that software that accomplished such improvements could be patent eligible."
Judge Thomas' statement could be interpreted as a round about way of saying that software that changes the hardware design is patentable because it creates a "new machine" but the Alice software does not create a new machine. The "new machine" argument is the rational basis for most software patents. Since no software changes a machine's design then all software patents based on the "new machine" concept are invalid. In future software patent cases attorneys trying to invalidate a software patent can use Judge Thomas's statements to invalidate a wide range of patents by refuting the "new machine" fallacy.
---------------------------------
Steve Stites