In addition to my previous posts relating to past obviousness case, I read up about another obviousness case that was decided in 1976 - Dann vs Johnston. This case is interesting because the Supreme Court used the obviousness factor to invalidate the patent, rather than tackle the issue that it was pertaining to software (a business method coded into a program).
In summary, the patent claims to be a "machine system for automatic record-keeping of bank checks and deposits". Since it reached the Supreme Court, it means there were different decisions in the lower courts, similar to the previous cases I blogged, and in this case primarily stemming from it being a software. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled the patent invalid as the processes were known and obvious. Should the processes have been non-obvious, the case might be more complicated and possible to go either way.
Certainly, software in the 70s was still a new area of development and patent rules regarding them were uncertain. I mean, four decades on and it is still widely debated. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did not have to deal with the issue of software patentability then, else it would have created a binding precedent. While it seems wrong, choosing to avoid the issue may have been the Supreme Court's best decision then. That era, even before the rising prominence of software, could have created many issues today whichever way the decision went.
Personally, thinking back, I feel that software patents should not be awarded if they had to deal with the issue then. It may seem alright now because there are already so many free software codes available, but back then, any software process could have allowed companies to monopolise an industry, preventing others from adapting the new software technologies, which were already limited by the number of software languages around.
Sources:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/219/
In summary, the patent claims to be a "machine system for automatic record-keeping of bank checks and deposits". Since it reached the Supreme Court, it means there were different decisions in the lower courts, similar to the previous cases I blogged, and in this case primarily stemming from it being a software. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled the patent invalid as the processes were known and obvious. Should the processes have been non-obvious, the case might be more complicated and possible to go either way.
Certainly, software in the 70s was still a new area of development and patent rules regarding them were uncertain. I mean, four decades on and it is still widely debated. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did not have to deal with the issue of software patentability then, else it would have created a binding precedent. While it seems wrong, choosing to avoid the issue may have been the Supreme Court's best decision then. That era, even before the rising prominence of software, could have created many issues today whichever way the decision went.
Personally, thinking back, I feel that software patents should not be awarded if they had to deal with the issue then. It may seem alright now because there are already so many free software codes available, but back then, any software process could have allowed companies to monopolise an industry, preventing others from adapting the new software technologies, which were already limited by the number of software languages around.
Sources:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/219/
Hi Jun Yi, I think your points of timing and fairness bring a very interesting perspective to the discussion on patentability. Indeed, allowing software to be patented when it can "monopolize" an industry seems unfair, but what tests might you be able to run to predict or test this future outcome? Just throwing out some thoughts. Also, an alternative track of logic might be that because an invention has the potential to monopolize a market, whereas no previous invention or "prior art" had the ability to do so, means that no ordinary skill or prior art could have comprised the new invention, which merits its patentability in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThis is such a relevant post today. I agree with your point that the timing is different now and that the Supreme Court must stop avoiding the issue. In terms of addressing the monopolization of a product it seems as if it would be difficult to determine in the 70s but now it would be much easier for us to understand the effect of rulings to the players in the market today. Therefore, it is key that the government starts making the step towards addressing the software market and how coders are able to protect the programs that they are able to achieve.
ReplyDelete