The future of software patents, part 2
In part two, well look at how software patents differ from other types, and what impact the ruling could have on the industry.
December 27, 2013 at 03:36 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In part one of this series, Greg Winsky, of counsel at Archer & Greiner, discussed with us the upcoming Supreme Court case Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International and how that case will address an issue that has long been ignored by the highest court in the land: software patents. In part two, we'll look at how software patents differ from other types, and what impact the ruling could have on the industry.
One of the biggest issues with software patents, says Winsky, is that there has been a general pronouncement against abstract ideas becoming patentable, like natural phenomena. The patents in the Alice case are quite simple. For example, one covers a process of exchanging financial obligation between parties and involves just four simple steps. It is something that banks do all the time, but throw in a microprocessor, and the patent office views things differently.
Another issue that Winsky sees is that, in the case of software patents, the party that becomes the defendant often does not fully understand matters. He used an analogy: If you go buy real estate, you can go to records and see the boundaries and the history of ownership. Patents are like that, as claims denote what is protected, but when the bounds are fuzzy, like in the Alice example, it becomes problematic for people to know how to navigate a particular piece of turf, which is one of the reasons that some say that software patents are not economically good for society, citing limited transparency as a major issue.
Winsky pointed out that software is protected by copyright law. In order to violate a copyright, one needs access to materials. If you reverse engineer a software system to find the source code and create something similar, that is a violation. It's far more cut and dried than issues related to patents.
As for the future, Winsky does not foresee the Supreme Court eliminating software patents. But he notes that some large tech companies like IBM want software patents to continue to be as enforceable as possible, while others like Google are not happy with the system the way it is and want less enforceability. No matter what happens, lobbying will heat up.
As for what is happening right now, Winsky has some issues with the current Goodlatte bill and action in the Senate. As he points out, the America Invents Act just revamped the patent system in 2011, and some of the changes from that law just came into effect this year. People are trying to figure it all out, and there appears to be more change coming. As Winsky points out, the U.S. patent system has remained largely unchanged for a century, and America has led the world with that patent system. It may be a case of “if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.”
For more patent news, check out the following:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMarriott's $52M Data Breach Settlement Points to Emerging Trend
Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
'You Don't Know Everything': GCs Say Success Leading Nonlegal Functions Starts With Humility
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250