SCOTUS: adding “with a computer” doesn’t make a new patentable invention
In a stunning verdict, the Supreme Court has tossed out a patent because it is a software patent, ruling that “merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention” — that is, adding “with a computer” doesn’t make a new patentable invention. This is seismic, and not just because of what it says about whether software is patentable in America, but because of how it escalates the turf war between the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, which is the nation’s “patent court.”
Michael Sauers is currently the Director of Technology for Do Space in Omaha, NE. Michael has been training librarians in technology for the past twenty years and has also been a public library trustee, a bookstore manager for a library friends group, a reference librarian, serials cataloger, technology consultant, and bookseller since earning his MLS in 1995 from the University at Albany’s School of Information Science and Policy. Michael has also written dozens of articles for various journals and magazines and his fourteenth book, Emerging Technologies: A Primer for Librarians (w/ Jennifer Koerber) was published in May 2015 and more books are on the way. In his spare time he blogs at travelinlibrarian.info, runs The Collector’s Guide to Dean Koontz Web site, takes many, many photos, and typically reads more than 100 books a year.
View all posts by Michael Sauers
In a stunning verdict, the Supreme Court has tossed out a patent because it is a software patent, ruling that “merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention” — that is, adding “with a computer” doesn’t make a new patentable invention. This is seismic, and not just because of what it says about whether software is patentable in America, but because of how it escalates the turf war between the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, which is the nation’s “patent court.”
