.[ZooBaB].

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-03/apple-starts-nuclear-war-in-patent-fight-with-htc-update2-.html

The complete documents for the suit are available here:
http://gizmodo.com/5483632/apple-sues-htc-for-infringing-on-20-iphone-patents?skyline=true&s=i

Jonas Bosson comments in his blog on this topic:
http://bosson.blogspot.com/2010/03/apple-makes-war-with-silly-broad.html

http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/02/patent-litigation-weekly-inside-googles-first-patent-trial.html#more

"For society, however, the loss of competition through the granting sole rights to an individual or organisation is justified only if it stimulates the economy and delivers goods that change people’s lives for the better. […] Instead of stimulating innovation, such [business method] patents seem more about extracting “rents” from innocent bystanders going about their business. […] If truth be told, few inventions are really worth patenting. Time and again, surveys show that in both America and Europe companies rate superior sales and service, lead time and secrecy as far more important than patents when it comes to profiting from innovation. […] Pursuing patents aggressively for cross-licensing agreements has little to do with encouraging innovation, though. Indeed, by increasing transaction costs, such deals are in effect a tax on innovation. By the same token, how much of a contribution have the 12,000 or so business processes patented annually in America (but few places elsewhere) made to innovation? Precious little, by all accounts. It is hard enough to find evidence (outside the pharmaceutical and biotech industries) showing that the patent system generally spurs innovation. It is harder still to find justification for business-process patents."

Source: http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15479680

"Kappos said that the project “got a good level of interest. It got positive responses from examiners and the public. [The project's participants] found significant prior art, especially in non-patent literature. That's important in software, where so often it's not patented prior art. Our mission as an agency is to get the best prior art in front of examiners. There clearly is value [in the project]." "

Source: http://www.sdtimes.com/link/34113

"The machine or transformation test is the current analysis that the courts and the Patent Office will take when considering whether subject matter is patentable. As both Bilski and Prometheus show, this question is not industry specific, but it is particularly important when an inventor is trying to obtain patent rights directed to processes. Because of the changing landscape, and the likelihood that whatever the Supreme Court does, there will remain unanswered questions about where the boundaries lie, the patent practitioner should always consider trying to claim processes both broadly and as tied to devices and/or causes one or more transformations."

Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1202435413110&Patentable_Subject_Matter_After_Bilski

"Microsoft has been granted a patent on a privilege escalation system which appears to cover the functionality of PolicyKit, which is used for fine grain authorisation on Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE and other Linux systems."

Source: http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-Microsoft-patent-may-put-Linux-security-components-at-risk-857848.html

"It appears that Microsoft has just patented sudo, a personalized version of it. Here it is, patent number7617530. Thanks, USPTO, for giving Microsoft, which is already a monopoly, a monopoly on something that's been in use since 1980 and wasn't invented by Microsoft."

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111094923390

"At Monday’s hearing, neither party had the objective of abolishing software patents. The Bilski case is about a business method patent, so there was Mr. Jakes arguing that business methods should be patentable, and Mr. Stewart arguing that they shouldn’t. For software to be excluded, we’re relying on the judges (to whom we wrote an amicus brief, as did many others). There’re a few worrying statements, but there’s also a lot of hope."

Source: http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-software-patents/

"Official transcript of the hearing Bilski vs. Kappos before the US Supreme Court, Nov 9 2009."

Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-964.pdf

"At 2pm ET on November 9, 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled the session to a close announcing that the case had now been submitted. The arguments were good, and the Court was most assuredly hot, peppering both sides with question after question seeking to probe the issues. It is clear that the Supreme Court did their homework."

Source: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/bilski-arguments-complete-at-the-us-supreme-court/id=7217/

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/argument-day-in-bilski-at-us-supreme-court/id=7209/

"The last two decades have seen an extraordinary growth in the number of patent applications for business technologies and methods. Critics of business method patents tend to assign responsibility for this development to judicial activism by the judges of the Federal Circuit especially those responsible for the decision in State Street […] The judicial activism thesis may have a superficial appeal. […] Yet the judicial activism thesis suffers from multiple glaring problems and plainly cannot account for the timing of the rise in business method patenting, which plainly began well before State Street."

Source: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/11/business-method-patents-technological-change-not-judicial-activism.html

"With the tech industry looking on, the Supreme Court today will explore what types of inventions should be eligible for a patent in a pivotal case that could undermine such legal protections for software. A ruling that sides with the Patent Office could bar patents on processes and methods of doing business, such as online shopping techniques, medical diagnostic tests and procedures for executing trades on Wall Street. And it might even undercut patents on software."

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/regulation/2009-11-09-patents09_ST_N.htm

"In a world of constantly accelerating technological change, economic prosperity depends on innovation. To support such innovation, it is vital that our patent system be well-calibrated, so that overly broad patent monopolies do not choke innovation. In the last several years, patent standards have been relaxed by the courts, which has created a patent system that hinders innovation in the software industry. The Supreme Court now is considering a case, Bilski v. Kappos, that may address this critical problem."

Source: http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/178809.html

"In upholding a lower court ruling, the federal circuit wrote that a business process (like online banking) must be ‘tied to a machine’ or transform ‘a substance into a different state or thing’ in order to qualify for patent protection. This ‘machine or transformation’ test, as it is called, is too rigid to incite innovation.
If the circuit court ruling is upheld, it could have a negative effect on Connecticut technology companies where the ability to patent innovations in business systems is critical to be competitive and maintain customers."

Source: http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-chaclas-pitney-patent.artoct30,0,5438710.story

"The SFLC and I recently filed a brief in Bilski v. Kappos, along with plenty of other lawyers, and I gave a talk about the case, and the future of patent law, this morning at Cardozo Law School. The outpouring of amicus briefs in this case, which will be heard by the Court on November 9, must be particularly noticeable to the Justices and their law clerks: a stack of dozens of third-party briefs seeking attention would have been the lunchtime talk of that inner core of the Court back when I worked there, and I'm pretty sure that hasn't changed. A high stack of amicus briefs […] means people outside the Supreme Court think the case is important. Bilski is very important indeed."

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-moglen/an-important-patent-law-p_b_342962.html

"Bernie Bilski and Rand Warsaw were just a couple of "math geeks for hire" from Pittsburgh when they applied for a patent in 1997. They had an idea for making the unpredictable predictable for utility companies: a way to make energy bills consistent, month to month, no matter what Mother Nature had in store, weatherwise. WeatherWise USA Inc. is the name of their company, in fact. What Bilski and Warsaw did not predict is that their patent application would be rejected and, on appeal, would make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court 13 years later."

Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435264768&A_Math_Geeks_Ride_to_the_High_Court_in_Landmark_Patent_Fight

"If the Litigation Daily were prepping for our first Supreme Court argumentno snickering, pleasein a case that's considered one of the critical business controversies of the Court's term, we would be a damn sight more nervous than J. Michael Jakes of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner. On Monday, Jakes is arguing Bilski v. Kappos, a closely watched IP case that will help decide whether business methods are patentable. But last Thursday afternoon, when we called him, Jakes was at his desk, sounding decidedly unfazed about his first U.S. Supreme Court argument."

Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/digestTAL.jsp?id=1202435239067

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1108/p02s13-usju.html