|
Marshall Phelps, former head of IP at IBM and Microsoft: "My concern was that the pressure to do something about business methods would bleed over into software. I view it as a big sigh of relief on that point. The Court was smart enough to realise that they can't predict where technology is going to go. I think we're all going to live to see another day."
Jim Greenwood, Biotechnology Industry Organization: "The Court was clearly conscious of the potential negative and unforeseeable consequences of a broad and sweeping decision. This ruling specifically states that the 'machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility' and recognised that the lower court's ruling could have created uncertainty in fields such as advanced diagnostic medicine techniques."
Daniel Ravicher, Public Patent Foundation: "For over a decade we've seen patents on ideas, thoughts, and even genes. Today the Court missed an opportunity to send a strong signal that ideas are not patentable subject matter. The Court's rejection of Bilski's patent application got rid of a symptom of the disease, but failed to treat the real cause by reconfirming that thought and thought processes are not patentable."
Brian O'Shaughnessy, Licensing Executives Society (USA and Canada): "Overall, we believe the Supreme Court's decision represents an important step towards maintaining a balanced, effective patent system that promotes innovation and opportunity for both inventors and consumers. By excluding abstract ideas from patent protection, while maintaining the patentability of real-world inventions in all technical fields, this decision will enhance companies' ability to work together through licensing to offer new products and services."
Rob Tiller, Red Hat: "For those troubled by the problems surrounding software patents, the opinion will be disappointing, because it does not resolve those problems. But it would be a mistake to view the opinion as a victory for the proponents of expanding software patents ... The rationale for invalidating the Bilski patent is one that could easily be applied to void some software patents. The Court found the business method patent at issue was an unpatentable abstract idea. It reaffirmed the validity of its prior case law rejecting attempts to patent abstract ideas, including mathematical algorithms. As Ben Klemens has explained ..software is properly viewed as consisting entirely of algorithms."
Todd Dickinson, AIPLA: "We are generally pleased that the Court's majority confirmed that broad patent protection is critical to innovation and economic growth. They recognised that the patentability of next generation technology should not be judged by a last century view of the law. This was the position that AIPLA urged in its amicus brief and we are gratified that the Court adopted much of our reasoning."
Brian Kahin, Computer and Communications Industry Association: "By concluding that the hedging technique was no more than an abstract idea, the Court breathes new life into the abstract idea exclusion, but does not offer new guidance on just what that is. The opinion is fairly clear about what it isn't doing. It is not clear about what it is doing. By declining to give fixed meaning to terms like 'process' and 'business method', the Court has recreated at a systemic level the problem of fuzzy and uncertain boundaries that have plagued patents in abstract areas and made it both risky and costly to assert, avoid or defend against patents." |