Supreme Court agrees to tackle software patents again

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is taking on another patent case, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (PDF Link), which has the potential to rock our software patents. Whether SCOTUS will or not join the movement toward patent reform is another question entirely.

In this case, Alice International, an Australian company, has a patent, Systems and computer program products for exchanging an obligation, Patent No. 7,725,375. It describes a method for two parties to safely exchange currency or other financial instruments. Alice was also granted other related patents. In May 2007, Alice was sued by CLS Bank International. CLS claimed that the patents were invalid and unenforceable. A related argument was that all the patents only codified ancient business practices on a computer, hence there's no patentable invention here.

In the resulting patent battle, one side after the other has been on top. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir.), which covers patent litigation, then took upon itself the Herculean task "of issuing clarifying standards on computer-implemented inventions — the task at which it ultimately failed because it could not assemble a majority for a single approach."

Now, SCOTUS is going to attempt to untangle the knot. Why this case matters to people outside the lawsuit, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), is that SCOTUS is being asked to decide "whether an abstract idea (such as using an escrow agent as part of a financial transaction) can be patented if, instead of claiming the idea itself, the applicant claims it's a computer system that implements the idea." The broader issues are whether software or business methods can be patented.

SCOTUS has made decisions on this before in recent years, notably in SCOTUS's 2010 Bilski decision, where the Court essentially punted on these vital issues. This lead to Software Freedom Law Center chairman Eben Moglen aptly observing at the time that the decision made, that it set patent reform back by a decade.

Of course, SCOTUS may not make a firm decision this time either. Certainly Fed. Ctr. didn't come to any broad conclusions. On one side, Judge Alan Lourie argued that "appending generic computer functionality" to an otherwise abstract concept was not enough to make it non-abstract, or somehow patentable.

On the other side, Judge Kimberly Moore, argued that "Let’s be clear: if all of these claims, including the system claims, are not patent-eligible, this case is the death of hundreds of thousands of patents, including all business method, financial system, and software patents as well as many computer implemented and telecommunications patents."

To Judge Moore that would be a bad thing. Opponents of software and business practice patents, and the patent trolls that go with them, would welcome such a good result.

We'll see in 2014 how SCOTUS will untie this knot, or whether the court will just issue a narrow, cutting decision to the Gordian knot of intellectual property patents. I'm hoping that SCOTUS will rid of software patents once and for all, but they've disappointed me before, and I fear they'll do so again. 

Related Stories:

Activision-Vivendi $8 estadounidenseshan treatment cleared in Supreme Court

Summary: Has lifted the temporary injunction of the Delaware Chancery Court to prevent that you repurchase shares for Activision.

Activision Blizzard plans to great interest when purchasing parent company Vivendi in the firm can now go ahead, once a temporary block on the deal was revoked at the Court.

On Thursday, the game manufacturer announced that it expects to complete the deal of $8.2 billion on or by October 15, 2013, according to a press release.

Parties - Activision, Vivendi and ASAC II LP - are now free to move forward with the transaction. Under the terms of the agreement, Activision acquired shares of the company 429 million approximately and certain attributes of tax of parent company Vivendi for approximately $5.83 billion in cash. In addition, investor ASAC, led by the CEO of Activision Blizzard Bobby Kotick and co-chairman Brian Kelly - buy 172 million Vivendi shares for $13.60 per share, or $2.34 billion.

The agreement will reduce Vivendi stake to approximately 12 per cent.

Originally announced in August, the deal was delayed when a shareholder of Activision filed a lawsuit against Activision and its parent company, arguing that you excluding Vivendi, the deal was not subject to a vote of the majority of investors from Activision. However, the temporary injunction imposed by Delaware Chancery Court now has been overturned by the Supreme Court of Delaware.

At the time of the original announcement, Kotick said:

"These operations are a tremendous opportunity for Activision Blizzard and all of its shareholders, including Vivendi. We must be even more fuerte-una independent company with a portfolio of best-in-class franchise and the approach and the flexibility to drive value for long-term shareholders and expand our leadership position as one of the most important companies of the world entertainment".

London medical anthropologist Charlie Osborne is journalist, graphic designer, and former teacher.

Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Yahoo! file motions in FISA Court

Summary: The four large Internet service companies have asked the FISA Court to allow them to publish certain aggregate data about FISA requests they receive. The government will have to defend in court.

Today Microsoft, Google, Yahoo! and Facebook all filed motions with the FISC (U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) to allow them to release certain aggregate data about the numbers of requests they receive from the government.

Microsoft and Google filed such motions many weeks ago; the proceedings were delayed at the government's request until just recently as the parties negotiated. The negotiations have failed and the matter will be heard in the FISC.

Today Microsoft and Google filed amended motions with more specifics on what they wished to disclose. They were joined by Yahoo! and Facebook which filed similar motions with the FISC.

The motions are all worded similarly, arguing that the government has no reasonable claim that release of the data would compromise any legitimate governmental interest, and that in any case the prohibition is a violation of the companies' First Amendment free speech rights.

Facebook asks to be able to release:

The total number of FISA court orders it has received during a 6 month period, if any, under specific FISA authorities, such as: Physical Search OrdersBusiness Record OrdersWiretap and Pen Register/Trap and Trace ordersThe total number of user accounts specified in such FISA ordersThe total number of Directives it has received during the period  under 18 U.S.C. § 1881a, if anyThe total number of user accounts specified under such directives.The number of requests that called for content of communications versus those that called for transaction or subscriber information.

Yahoo!'s and Google's motions are identical as to what they request and are even more specific:

FISA orders based on probable cause (Titles I and III of FISA, and sections 703 and 704);Section 702 of FISA;FISA Section 12 Business Records (Title V of FISA); andFISA Pen Register/Trap and Trace (Title IY of FISA).

Microsoft's is less specific, asking that the court allow them to:

… disclose, for each provision of FISA and/ or the FAA, pursuant to which Microsoft may receive process, the following aggregate figures: (1) the number of orders and/ or directives (if any) received that require the production of only non-content data, and the number of accounts affected by any such orders and/or directives; and (2) the total number of orders and/ or directives (if any) received that require the production of content and non-content data, and the number of accounts affected by any such orders and/ or directives (together, the "Aggregate Data").

All of the companies state that inaccurate reports in the press are damaging their reputations and that greater disclosure would help them to defend themselves.

Larry Seltzer has long been a recognized expert in technology, with a focus on mobile technology and security in recent years