Microsoft has joined the call to scrap patents that are overly broad. It has been joined by Adobe and HP in its application.
Horacio Gutierrez, deputy general counsel and corporate vice-president: legal and corporate affairs at Microsoft, says the company has filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in support of affirmance in the Alice Corp versus CLS Bank case.
“Our interest in this case is to ensure the Supreme Court understands the difference between true technological innovations and the types of business method patents at issue in this case,” Gurierrez writes in his corporate blog.
“Simply put, Alice Corp’s patents have nothing to do with software or computer technology. They relate to a method for reducing ‘settlement risk’ in business transactions. They do not advance the state of technology, nor do they allow computers to execute the steps of a business transaction faster, more efficiently or more reliably than they could before.
“Claims that merely tack on a reference to implementation on a computer, in this instance an escrow transaction, don’t merit patent protection. The Supreme Court has already indicated, in cases like Bilski versus Kappos, claims like these are generally not patent-eligible standing alone. In our view, simply adding ‘on a computer’ doesn’t magically transform a business method into a patent-eligible invention.’
Gutierrez believes Alice’s patents stand in contrast to the true software-based innovations that power technologies ranging from the modern smartphone to advanced robotic manufacturing, fly-by-wire systems, artificial retinas, driverless cars and a host of others.
“Over the years, Microsoft has made major contributions in the field of computing technology and holds many patents that reflect these technological advances,” he says. “But we are also, like so many other companies, frequently sued for infringement based on vague patents. While our brief defends the value of true computer-enabled inventions, it also clearly illustrates why the Alice patents don’t qualify for patent protection and should be invalidated.
“The court has already provided guidance on the question of the patent eligibility of true computer-enabled inventions. The issue in this case is low-quality, overly broad patents. Clarifying that these patents – and others like them – are invalid will improve patent quality and facilitate the fair and efficient functioning of the IP system that generates more than $5-trillion in US economic activity and 40-million American jobs.”
