Software patents under United States patent law | Wikipedia audio article
Channel: wikipedia tts
Date: 2019-01-16

This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law


00:02:53 1 Law
00:03:01 1.1 Constitution
00:03:43 1.2 Statute
00:04:30 2 History
00:06:03 2.1 iBenson/i case
00:06:46 2.2 iFlook/i case
00:07:55 2.3 iDiehr/i case
00:09:27 2.4 Pre-1994 period
00:10:37 2.5 iAlappat/i case
00:11:41 2.6 iState Street Bank/i case and aftermath
00:13:24 2.7 Case law after 2000
00:15:11 2.8 iBilski/i case
00:16:59 2.9 iMayo/i case
00:17:46 2.10 iAlice/i case
00:18:55 2.11 Post-iAlice/i period
00:19:20 2.11.1 iDigitech/i
00:20:10 2.11.2 ibuySAFE/i
00:21:09 2.11.3 iDDR Holdings/i
00:21:47 2.11.4 iVersata v. SAP/i
00:24:18 2.11.5 iLoyalty Conversion/i and other 2014 district court cases
00:27:08 2.11.6 What software patents will survive iAlice/i analysis?
00:29:26 2.11.7 iAllvoice/i
00:30:33 3 Landmark decisions
00:31:07 4 See also



Listening is a more natural way of learning, when compared to reading. Written language only began at around 3200 BC, but spoken language has existed long ago.

Learning by listening is a great way to:
- increases imagination and understanding
- improves your listening skills
- improves your own spoken accent
- learn while on the move
- reduce eye strain

Now learn the vast amount of general knowledge available on Wikipedia through audio (audio article). You could even learn subconsciously by playing the audio while you are sleeping! If you are planning to listen a lot, you could try using a bone conduction headphone, or a standard speaker instead of an earphone.

Listen on Google Assistant through Extra Audio:
https://assistant.google.com/services/invoke/uid/0000001a130b3f91
Other Wikipedia audio articles at:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wikipedia+tts
Upload your own Wikipedia articles through:
https://github.com/nodef/wikipedia-tts
Speaking Rate: 0.9087230838869645
Voice name: en-US-Wavenet-E


"I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think."
- Socrates


SUMMARY
=======
Neither software nor computer programs are explicitly mentioned in statutory United States patent law. Patent law has changed to address new technologies, and decisions of the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) beginning in the latter part of the 20th century have sought to clarify the boundary between patent-eligible and patent-ineligible subject matter for a number of new technologies including computers and software. The first computer software case in the Supreme Court was Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972. Since then, the Supreme Court has decided about a half dozen cases touching on the patent eligibility of software-related inventions.
The eligibility of software, as such, for patent protection has been only scantily addressed in the courts or in legislation. In fact, in the recent Supreme Court decision in Alice v. CLS Bank, the Court painstakingly avoided the issue, and one Justice in the oral argument repeatedly insisted that it was unnecessary to reach the issue.  The expression "software patent" itself has not been clearly defined. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has permitted patents to be issued on nothing more than a series of software computer instructions, but the latest Federal Circuit decision on the subject invalidated such a patent. The court held that software instructions as such were too intangible to fit within any of the statutory categories such as machines or articles of manufacture.On June 19, 2014 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International that "merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." The ruling continued:

[...] the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it'" is not enough for patent eligibility.[] Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment.'"[]. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to "implemen[t]" an abstract idea "on . . . a computer," [] that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.