Feeds

No US patent for the patently obvious

US to fall in line with Europe?

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Build a business case: developing custom apps

Americans will have to try harder if they want to patent business method software, following the refusal of the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to grant a patent for a method of plotting a point on the graph.

The PTO ruled that applications must be tied clearly to 'technological art or environment'. Bowman, the graph plotter, failed to make his point because he showed no technological art. His is simply an abstract idea: exactly the same as a human making mental computation and manually plotting results on paper.

Commonsense, you may think. But no, this little-noticed, if admittedly non-precedential ruling could mark a subtle shift in the interpretation of US patent law.

An article in the US Association of Patent Law Firms (APLF) newsletter suggests that the ruling may even bring the US PTO closer to the UK, European and Japanese patent offices, all of which have much tighter rules on when a patent may be granted for a piece of software.

The status quo

In the US, the mere fact that software runs on a computer is considered sufficient ‘technical effect’ for a patent. This interpretation is the result of the 1998 State Street Bank ruling. The judge ruled that a piece of software which automated trading of mutual funds, a business process, produced “concrete, tangible and useful" effects, and was therefore patentable.

This was huge news. If a software description of a business process could be protected by a patent, then there was money to be made. A patent rush began, and companies now spend small fortunes filing and defending patents.

Consider the Amazon ‘One-Click’ patent. The bookseller effectively patented the idea of keeping good customer records: it stored information like credit card details and delivery address etc. so customers could buy books with less hassle. In the UK and Europe, where rules are much stricter, Amazon did not even apply to patent the idea.

So what has changed? Tim Wall, a patent lawyer at US firm Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley and author of the APLF article, cautions against reading too much into the Bowman ruling.

"At a glance, the holding seems contrary to SSB [State Street Bank]...but the distinction appears to be that in the prior cases, specific technology was either disclosed or necessary to perform the patented methods, whereas the Appellant in Bowman apparently overtly did not disclose (and maybe did not require) specific technology to perform the method."

The Bowman case is more a lesson in drafting claims than an industry-shaking precedent, Wall argues. Quality examination of patents is the key to providing a balance between rewarding inventors for their industry and not inhibiting future development, he says.

All around the world

Current interpretation of European patent law allows for patents of software that produce a ‘technical effect’. This is defined as "the control of an industrial process or the internal functioning of the computer itself," according to the European Patent Office.

In the UK, the Patent Office is legally prevented from granting patents for business methods, or for "mental acts". In 2001, then e-minister Patricia Hewitt said that technological innovation was the key principle: “A program for a new machine tool should be patentable but grammar-checking software for a word-processor should not be."

The Japanese position is similar, although it is not enshrined in law. "The Japanese are reluctant to award business process patents, so tend research contentious applications until they find evidence of prior art”, a Patent Office spokesman said.

As the EU debates a directive that will harmonise European patent law, the Open Source lobby fears a swing toward a more permissive, US-style system, and is campaigning hard to get the issue included in the debate.

More surprisingly, many big software firms have also lobbied against such a move.

According to the Patent Office, IBM was a strong advocate of a UK-style exclusion of business method patents in the consultation process. The reason? The law suits are just too expensive, both in time and money. ®

Related stories

Anti-patent protest rains cookies on Amazon.fr's parade
Divine Inc. extracts dotcom tithe from UK firm
BT claims ownership of hyperlinks

The essential guide to IT transformation

More from The Register

next story
The Return of BSOD: Does ANYONE trust Microsoft patches?
Sysadmins, you're either fighting fires or seen as incompetents now
Microsoft cries UNINSTALL in the wake of Blue Screens of Death™
Cache crash causes contained choloric calamity
Munich considers dumping Linux for ... GULP ... Windows!
Give a penguinista a hug, the Outlook's not good for open source's poster child
Time to move away from Windows 7 ... whoa, whoa, who said anything about Windows 8?
Start migrating now to avoid another XPocalypse – Gartner
You'll find Yoda at the back of every IT conference
The piss always taking is he. Bastard the.
HANA has SAP cuddling up to 'smaller partners'
Wanted: algorithm wranglers, not systems giants
prev story

Whitepapers

Endpoint data privacy in the cloud is easier than you think
Innovations in encryption and storage resolve issues of data privacy and key requirements for companies to look for in a solution.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Top 8 considerations to enable and simplify mobility
In this whitepaper learn how to successfully add mobile capabilities simply and cost effectively.
Solving today's distributed Big Data backup challenges
Enable IT efficiency and allow a firm to access and reuse corporate information for competitive advantage, ultimately changing business outcomes.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.