Alice the Patentslayer - What versus How

About couple years ago the United States Supreme Court decided Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), a 2014 decision about patentable subject matter in the United States (aka, patent eligibility).  The issue in the case was whether certain claims about a computer-implemented, electronic escrow service for facilitating financial transactions covered abstract ideas ineligible for patent protection. The patents were held to be invalid because the claims were drawn to an abstract idea, and implementing those claims on a computer was not enough to transform that idea into patentable subject matter.  Sounds simple, right?  Wrong.

Ever since the Alice decision, U.S. courts have been in near disarray trying to figure out exactly what an abstract idea is.  How do you define it?  How do you know if a patent's claims are claiming an abstract idea? or a patentable invention?  Courts have been spending a lot of time and energy trying to figure this out, but no one seems to have done it well yet.  At least, not as far as this author is aware.  Courts provide examples, but for every example on one side of the law there seems to be an opposite example on the other.  In the meantime, patents are being struck down at a record pace.  Perhaps this is good, perhaps this is bad, I really don't know.  But what I do know is that we need clarity.

Part of the issue is that, at some level, EVERY patent protects an idea.  You see, copyrights protect expression, patents protect ideas.  People have been explaining patents as such for a very long time.  Now you begin to see the problem.  How do you determine whether a patents claims is directed to an abstract idea when by very definition a patent is supposed to protect an inventor's ideas?

Our Simple Premise®: Claims directed to the "what" are abstract ideas, whereas claims directed to the "how" contain patent-eligible subject matter.  

This doesn't mean that all claims directed to the "how" are patentable.  They still must pass muster under the other requirements of novelty and nonobviousness.  But at least this gives us a conceptual starting point that people can understand.  Yes, we know that one man's "what" is another man's "how", but we believe there could be more consensus using this test than the other tests that courts have thus far had a hard time applying IRL.

Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor: Among competing hypotheses, the simple theory is more likely correct than the complex one.

The government calls it KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!), which is a design principle coined by the U.S. Navy in 1960 (yes, even the government recognizes–or did at one time–that systems work best if they are kept simple). Simplicity should be a key goal in design, and unnecessary complexity should be avoided.

Whatever you call it, simplicity is generally best–the simple answer is usually the right one. Don't over complicate things.  Don't overthink it.  So why don’t we apply this principle in government? Simple Premise® promotes principles of effective governance, fiscal responsibility, and transparent public advocacy by offering solutions that reduce the complexity of fundamental principles of governance. How, you ask? It's simple, really.... Simplicity in governance.  You can view more on our basic tenets here.

• Fiscal Responsibility
• Citizen Congress
• Campaign Finance Reform
• Tax Reform

Welcome to Simple Premise.  We hope you'll support our cause.