One of the most pernicious trends of the last twenty years is businesses getting patents on “business processes,” usually by claiming that they came up with the idea of taking some normal, real-world process (a shopping cart, an auction, a “buy now” solicitation) and implementing it on a computer. Calling these patents “bullshit” is slandering manure, frankly; at least manure can grow things. Even speaking as someone with a few patents to my name, the current patent system is completely out of control.
Although the vast majority of these patents are utterly invalid, often on the face of them, companies still can use them as legal weapons until they are found invalid. Fighting the necessary fight to get the USPTO to invalidate a patent requires tons of specialized legal work, and specialized legal work is not cheap.
As one of my “What would I do if I won the lottery?” fantasies, I imagined starting a foundation that would do nothing except file challenges against these idiocies. Thus, I am incredibly pleased that the Electronic Freedom Foundation has announced that they are going to start doing precisely that. If I do win the lottery, they’re getting a big old donation. Heck, they are getting one even if I don’t win.
posted 23:57Could you give an example of a company patenting a process? Or were you referring to the proprietary software to automate some kind of process?
Posted by: JonasParker at April 20, 2004 11:24 AMWhen one is talking about processes that, as part of their essence, use computers, the difference between patenting a process and patenting the automation of a process using a computer is a distinction without a difference. If I am issued a patent for "software that implements an electronic version of a physical shopping cart," then it is entirely fair to say I have been granted a patent on electronic shopping carts.
Saying that I haven't really patented electronic shopping carts, because someone could come along and implement one that doesn't use software, seems just a tiny bit disingenuous, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Christophe at April 20, 2004 11:48 AMOh, and just to be clear, there is no question that business processes and methods are inherently patentable: State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
Posted by: Christophe at April 20, 2004 11:53 AM