Patent Law

Out of Hand

By Gary Odom and Jordan Kuhn

The New York Times turns troglodyte on invention, fearing patents can "stifle competition and infringe on the rights of non-patent holders. Not every bright idea should be protected as a property right." Only bright ideas that take jobs from workers. In a nutshell, the New York Times thinks that there should be a law against the law.

NYT:

The Constitution's Patent Clause restricts patent protection to the "useful Arts," which at the time primarily meant the work of skilled workers and artisans, particularly in engineering and manufacturing. The patent laws Congress has passed, going back to the 1790 Patent Act, have restricted patent protection to inventions of this sort.

If the court sides with [Bilski] it would open the door for all sorts of "processes." That would lock up all sorts of techniques - including abstract ways of thinking about future events - that should not properly belong to anyone.

We certainly wouldn't want patents for all sorts of "processes." That would be statutory.

35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable. Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

The real problem here is that people read the mainstream press and think they have a sense of what is going on. The blind leading the blind.

Bilski's risk mitigation idea is patently rank, imbecilic claims that deserve ridicule. But not because they claim a process. Because they are indefinite.

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are Monday, November 9. Here's to the Court sticking with its own precedents, chiding the CAFC (again) for its rigid thinking, and tossing Bilski out on its ear.

Full post as published by The Patent Prospector on November 08, 2009 (boomark / email).