WRAL Tech Wire

In their words: Red Hat’s brief in Bilski case

Red Hat

Related Blog Posts

• 'Bilski': Software firms eye key patent case at Supreme Court
• In their words: IBM states its argument in Bilski case
• Software patent case: ‘One small leap for open source, one giant leap for mankind’

On The Web

• Red Hat’s brief

Site Search

The following is a key portion of Red Hat’s amicus brief:

“Far from encouraging innovation, this proliferation of patents has seriously encumbered innovation in the software industry. Software is an abstract technology, and translating software functions into patent language generally results in patents with vague and uncertain boundaries. Software products are often highly complex, created by combining hundreds or thousands of discrete (and potentially novel) elements in a cumulative process. Because the boundaries of software patents are exceedingly vague and the numbers of issued software patents is now enormous, it is virtually impossible to rule out the possibility that a new software product may arguably infringe some patent.

“Thus, under the Federal Circuit’s previous erroneous approach, the risk of going forward with a new software product now always entails an unavoidable risk of a lawsuit that may cost many millions of dollars in legal fees, as well as actual damages, treble damages, and an injunction that terminates a business. Only those with an unusually high tolerance for risk will participate in such a market. The more risk averse, no matter how great their business or technical gifts and innovative potential, are likely to avoid such a market and seek their fortunes elsewhere.

“This case offers an opportunity to restore the historical and well-founded boundaries for patentable subject matter that exclude abstract ideas from patent eligibility. It also offers an opportunity to reaffirm the rule, supported both by case law and by sound policy, that computer software is among the types of abstract subject matter that are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The machine-or-transformation test set forth in the decision below is fully consistent with this Court’s prior case law regarding the patenting of abstract ideas. The Court should adopt this test and make clear that it excludes software from patenting.”

Editor's Blog

The latest blog posts from our WRAL Tech Wire and WRAL editors. Read more articles…