Blogs

RSS FeedBlogs
RSS FeedSubscribe to this blog
About Author
Glyn Moody

Glyn Moody's look at all levels of the enterprise open source stack. The blog will look at the organisations that are embracing open source, old and new alike (start-ups welcome), and the communities of users and developers that have formed around them (or not, as the case may be).

US Gene Patents Thrown Out: Software Patents Next?

Article comments

There's been an important development in the world of US patents:

Patents on genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer are invalid, ruled a New York federal court today. The precedent-setting ruling marks the first time a court has found patents on genes unlawful and calls into question the validity of patents now held on approximately 2,000 human genes.

That's notable because it asserts definitively (well, subject to appeals) that genes are not patentable matter – overturning decades of practice. Here's what the judge said on the issue:

Judge Sweet, however, ruled that the patents were “improperly granted” because they involved a “law of nature.” He said that many critics of gene patents considered the idea that isolating a gene made it patentable “a ‘lawyer’s trick’ that circumvents the prohibition on the direct patenting of the DNA in our bodies but which, in practice, reaches the same result.”

Note that it singles out “a ‘lawyer’s trick’ that circumvents the prohibition on the direct patenting of the DNA in our bodies but which, in practice, reaches the same result”. That's interesting, because it is essentially the same technique that is used in the world of software patents.

Patent offices around the world agree that “laws of nature” - for example, scientific or mathematical knowledge - cannot be patented, because like genes they cannot be invented, only discovered. So in some jurisdictions, patents lawyers resort to using the trick of claiming to patent some mythical “computer-implemented invention” (CII). Here's what the European Patent Office has to say on the subject:

The EPO does not grant patents for computer programs or computer-implemented business methods that make no technical contribution. Programs for computers as such are excluded from patentability by virtue of Art. 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC. According to this patent law, a program for a computer is not patentable if it does not have the potential to cause a "further technical effect" which must go beyond the inherent technical interactions between hardware and software.

On the other hand, a CII (even in the form of a computer program) that can provide this further technical effect can be patentable, subject to the other patentability requirements, such as novelty and inventive step. In this case, it would be recognised as providing a technical solution to a technical problem.

This makes the judge's comments about the “lawyer's trick” in the Myriad Genetics case particularly significant: it suggests that some at least are beginning to push back against such twisting of the law. Let's hope judges examining software patents in the wake of In re Bilski will think the same way.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Share:

Comments

Send to a friend

Email this article to a friend or colleague:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.


We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message

ComputerworldUK Knowledge Vault

ComputerworldUK
Share
x
Open