A unanimous Supreme Court narrowed the reach of software patents Thursday.
The Court ruled that simply involving a computer in an idea doesn’t mean it’s patentable. The justices tossed out several patents belonging to Alice, an Australian financial services company, and the ruling could invalidate other similar patents.
But the Court didn’t go as far as many patent critics had hoped, declining to strike down all software patents. Critics argue that a rise in litigation (especially over software patents) is suppressing innovation and limiting consumers’ access to technology.
The Supreme Court has long ruled that “abstract” ideas are generally not patentable. Alice’s patents covered a computer system for facilitating financial transactions. CLS Bank challenged the patents, and the high court agreed that a patentable invention must do more than just add a computer to an otherwise abstract idea.
“Merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the Court.
Google, Facebook, Amazon, and other technology giants had urged the Court to issue a broad ruling against software patents. In a brief to the Court, the companies wrote that abstract software patents “have become a plague on computer-related industries.”
Other companies, including Microsoft and Adobe, agreed that the Court should throw out Alice’s patents, but warned against a sweeping blow against all software patents. Those companies said the Court had no reason to “risk the potential uncertainty and unforeseen impacts” by addressing the patentability of all software.
Ultimately, the Court was careful to craft a narrow ruling. Thomas wrote that “many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter,” but the Court offered little guidance on what kinds of software patents might still be valid.
The ruling comes after the Senate abandoned legislation to crack down on “patent trolls” — firms that file frivolous patent claims to extort settlements out of companies. Many tech companies argue that patent trolls have become a drain on the economy.
What We're Following See More »
After more than a month of back and forth, a failed bill, and GOP embarrassment, the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus has announced that it will support the Obamacare replacement legislation in its most recent iteration. Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the caucus, said the roughly 30 members of the caucus view this compromise as the best option short of a full repeal. A recent amendment, authored by Meadows and Rep. Tom McArthur, co-chair of the more moderate Tuesday Group, would allow states to apply for waivers exempting them from provisions forbidding insurers from charging higher prices to those with pre-existing conditions if the state set up a high-risk pool. The plan's passage in the House is not a done deal though, as a number of moderate lawmakers have resisted supporting the amendment.
"A U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer fired a warning flare toward an Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessel coming near it in the Persian Gulf. The incident happened Monday as the vessel closed to within 1,000 meters of the USS Mahan, "despite the destroyer trying to turn away from it." After attempting to contact the Iranian vessel and sounding its whistle, it deployed the flare. After that, the ship had had enough and turned away.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing part of an executive order calling for the end of federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities. The decision was followed by a scathing rebuke from the White House, a precedent-breaking activity which with this White House has had no qualms. A White House statement called the decision an "egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge." The statement was followed by an inaccurate Wednesday morning tweetstorm from Trump, which railed against the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While Judge Orrick's district falls within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, Orrick himself does not serve on the Ninth Circuit.
"House Republicans are circulating the text of an amendment to their ObamaCare replacement bill that they believe could bring many conservatives on board. According to legislative text of the amendment," drafted by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), "the measure would allow states to apply for waivers to repeal one of ObamaCare’s core protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Conservatives argue the provision drives up premiums for healthy people, but Democrats—and many more moderate Republicans—warn it would spark a return to the days when insurance companies could charge sick people exorbitantly high premiums."