Source: http://spotidoc.com/doc/88053/no.-13-298-i-t-alice-corporation-pty.-ltd.-
Timestamp: 2020-02-20 19:10:35
Document Index: 464596283

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 8', '§ 101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§8', '§101', 'art16', '§101', '§101']

I N T HE
E BEN M OGLEN
M ISHI C HOUDHARY
J ONATHAN D. B EAN
Q UESTION P RESENTED
Whether claims to computer-implemented inventions—including claims to systems and machines,
processes, and items of manufacture—are directed to
patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by this Court?
T ABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . .
I NTEREST OF A MICI C URIAE . . . . . . . . .
S UMMARY OF A RGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . .
A RGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Processes Are Not Patentable If They
Are Implemented Solely Through Computer Software, Without a Specialized
Machine, or Transformation of Matter,
As This Court Has Uniformly Held . . .
Historically, Any Subject Matter That
Pre-Empts the Free Use of Laws
of Nature, Abstract Ideas, or Algorithms is Unpatentable . . . . . . . .
Computer Programs are Algorithms
for Computers to Execute Written in
Human-Readable Terms. Standing
Alone, Without Specialized Machinery or the Transformation of Matter,
They Are Not Patentable, As This
Court Has Repeatedly Held . . . . . .
The “Machine or Transformation”
Test is the Correct and Complete Test
of Patent Eligibility for ComputerImplemented Inventions . . . . . . .
Adhering to the Court’s Previous Decisions on Patentability of Software
Standing Alone Does Not Imperil the
Pace of Software Innovation . . . . . . .
Innovation in Software, Like Innovation in Mathematics, is Encouraged
by Scientific Processes of Free Sharing and Open Publication, Not by
Granting State-Issued Monopolies on
Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The History of the Free Software
Movement and the Worldwide Adoption of Free and Open Source Software by Industry Shows That Patenting Software Has Not Contributed to
the Important Software Innovations
of the Last Generation . . . . . . . . .
III. The First Amendment Prohibits Construing the Patent Act to Permit the
Patenting of Abstract Ideas . . . . . . .
C ONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE OF A UTHORITIES
130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
94 U.S. 780 (1877) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 6
447 U.S. 303 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 7
450 U.S. 175 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Eldred v. Ashcroft,
537 U.S. 186 (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 19–21
Funk Brothers Seed Company v.
Kalo Inoculant Company,
333 U.S. 127 (1948) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 8
409 U.S. 63 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Harper & Row, Publishers v.
Nation Enterprises,
471 U.S. 539 (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
55 U.S. (14 How.) 156 (1853) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Mayo Collaborative Services v.
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 7, 9, 10
Microsoft v. AT&T,
550 U.S. 437 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
O’Reilly v. Morse,
56 U.S. (15 How.) 62 (1854) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7–10
437 U.S. 584 (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Rubber-Tip Pencil v. Howard,
87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498 (1874) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 19
U.S. Const., amend. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 19–22
35 U.S.C. § 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Sup. Ct. R. 37.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
(Prentice Hall 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21, 22
“To Promote the Progress of . . . Useful Arts,”
Report of the President’s Commission on
the Patent System (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19
I NTEREST OF A MICI C URIAE
Much of the world’s most important and most commercially significant software is distributed under
copyright licensing terms that give recipients freedom
to copy, modify and redistribute the software (“free
software”).1 One could not send or receive e-mail, surf
the World Wide Web, perform a Google search or take
advantage of many of the other benefits offered by the
Internet without free software. Indeed, this brief was
written entirely with free software word processors,
namely GNU Emacs and LATEX, each of which are not
just competitive with or superior to non-free software
programs, but which also provide their users with the
freedom to improve the program to fit their needs and
reflect their desires.
The Software Freedom Law Center (“SFLC”) is a
not-for-profit legal services organization that provides
legal representation and other law-related services to
protect and advance free software. SFLC provides pro
bono legal services to non-profit free software developers and also helps the general public better understand the legal aspects of free software. SFLC has
an interest in this matter because the decision of this
Court will have a significant effect on the rights of the
Pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 37.6, amici note that no counsel for
a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or
party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No persons other than amici curiae and their counsel made a monetary contribution to its
preparation or submission. Petitioners and Respondents have
consented to the filing of this brief through blanket consent letters filed with the Clerk’s Office.
free software developers and users SFLC represents.
More specifically, SFLC has an interest in ensuring
that limits are maintained on the reach of patent law
so that free software development is not unreasonably
and unnecessarily impeded.
This brief is filed on behalf of the Free Software
Foundation, a charitable corporation with its main offices in Boston, Massachusetts. The Foundation believes that people should be free to study, share and
improve all the software they use and that this right
is an essential freedom for users of computing. The
Foundation has been working to achieve this goal
since 1985 by directly developing and distributing,
and by helping others to develop and distribute, software that is licensed on terms that permit all users
to copy, modify and redistribute the works, so long as
they give others the same freedoms to use, modify and
redistribute in turn. The Foundation is the largest
single contributor to the GNU operating system (used
widely today in its GNU/Linux variant for computers
from PCs to supercomputer clusters). The Foundation’s GNU General Public License is the most widely
used free software license, covering major components
of the GNU operating system and hundreds of thousands of other computer programs used on hundreds
of millions of computers around the world. The Foundation strongly rejects the use of patent law to control
the making and distribution of software. It believes
that the misapplication of patent law to computer software prevents the development, distribution and use
of free/libre software, and therefore endangers users’
control of their digital activities.
The Open Source Initiative (“OSI”) is a not-forprofit organization that supports and promotes the
open source movement. Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power
of distributed peer review and development to build
better software. The resulting software is globally
available, and provides more user flexibility and reliability, at lower cost than traditional, centralized
software development methods. Founded in 1998 by
some of the people who coined the term “open source”,
OSI promotes open source development, advocates
for the open source community, and maintains the
Open Source Definition that helps determine whether
a project is open source. OSI’s membership is global,
and includes individual developers, affiliated open
source projects, and corporate sponsors who participate in and benefit from open source. OSI has an interest in this matter because the decision of this Court
will have a significant effect on the rights and activities of the developers and users who make up the open
source movement. In particular, OSI has an interest
in limiting the reach of patent law so that open source
software development is not unreasonably impeded.
S UMMARY OF A RGUMENT
As this Court has held consistently, any subject matter that risks pre-empting free use of laws of nature,
algorithms, or abstract ideas is not eligible for patenting. This Court has repeatedly stated that, in determining the patentability of processes, the presence of
a particular machine or apparatus or transformation
of matter is a strong clue that the process claimed
is patent-eligible under §101. Cochrane v. Deener,
94 U.S. 780, 788 (1877); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409
U.S. 63, 70–71 (1972); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584,
588 n. 9 (1978); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184
(1981); Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010);
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1303 (2012).
The present case raises the question how to determine patent eligibility for computer-implemented inventions only, a narrower category of patent applications than those considered in Bilski. In this narrower
category of cases, the Court should adopt the “machine or transformation” test as the bright line. In the
more than sixty years since the adoption of the 1952
Patent Act amendments, the Court has never faced
a patent application for a computer-implemented invention that failed the “machine or transformation”
test and yet fell within the scope of §101. Speculation about such possible cases should not prevent the
clarity that adoption of a bright-line test would bring.
The “built-in” accommodation between copyright
law and the First Amendment, see Eldred v. Ashcroft,
537 U.S. 186, 219 (2003), is present, but in a different
form, in patent law. In Eldred, the Court held that the
idea/expression distinction and the fair use principle
are constitutionally required to prevent collision between copyright and the First Amendment. The same
required function is performed in patent law by the exemption of all subject matter that pre-empts free use
of laws of nature, algorithms and abstract ideas. In
cases involving computer software, the risk of creating statutory monopolies on ideas is particularly high,
because computer programs, as the Court has held,
are abstract ideas without physical embodiment. The
Court must construe the Patent Act to avoid constitutional infirmity, and it does so in this context by applying the “machine or transformation” test to such applications seeking statutory monopolies for computerimplemented inventions.
I. Processes Are Not Patentable If They Are
Implemented Solely Through Computer Software, Without a Specialized Machine, or
Transformation of Matter, As This Court Has
Uniformly Held
As Justice Breyer noted in Bilski, 130 S. Ct., at
[A]lthough the text of §101 is broad, it is not
without limit. . . . In particular, the Court
has long held that ‘[p]henomena of nature,
though just discovered, mental processes
and abstract intellectual concepts are not
patentable’ under §101, since allowing individuals to patent these fundamental principles would ‘wholly pre-empt’ the public’s access to the basic tools of scientific and technological work.
(internal citations omitted) (quoting Benson, 409 U.S.,
at 67, 72) (citing Diehr, 450 U.S., at 185; Diamond
v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980)).
In keeping with this principle, the Court has recognized in an unbroken series of cases extending over
more than a century that patents should not be allowed to preempt the fundamental tools of discovery
which should remain “free to all . . . and reserved
exclusively to none.” Funk Brothers Seed Company
v. Kalo Inoculant Company, 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948).
Patent eligibility at the constitutional limit cannot be
made the handmaiden of a clever draftsman. The test
articulated for patentability must take no account of
the terms in which claims are posed. The Court has
stated that “[t]ransformation and reduction of an article to a different state or thing is the clue to the
particular machines.” Benson, 409 U.S., at 71 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Summarizing this history,
Flook remarked that the Court had “only recognized a
process as within the statutory definition when it either was tied to a particular apparatus or operated to
change materials to a ‘different state or thing.’ ” 437
U.S., 588 n. 9 (quoting Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S, at
787–88). In Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S., at 184, this
Court once again applied the “machine or transformation” test regarding the patentability of processes
under §101. Though the Court has repeatedly cautioned that the “machine or transformation” test is
not the sole expression of the limits of §101, Bilski,
130 S. Ct., at 3227 Benson, 409 U.S., at 71, the Flook
Court’s generalization remains accurate: this Court
has never approved the patentability of a computerimplemented process which involved neither special
apparatus nor transformation of matter. This Court
should now hold, in keeping with its unbroken precedents, that computer software, in particular, cannot
be the sole component of a patentable process. To
patent a process implemented in computer software,
the invention claimed must additionally include either
a special purpose apparatus, not merely a general purpose computer to execute the software, or a transformation of matter.
H ISTORICALLY, A NY S UBJECT M ATTER T HAT
P RE -E MPTS THE F REE U SE OF L AWS OF N A TURE , A BSTRACT I DEAS, OR A LGORITHMS IS
U NPATENTABLE
Since before the Civil War, this Court has consistently made it clear that subject matter which would
have the practical effect of monopolizing laws of nature, abstract ideas or mathematical algorithms is ineligible for patent protection. O’Reilly v. Morse, 56
U.S. (15 How.) 62, 113 (1854); Gottschalk v. Benson,
409 U.S. 63; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584; Diamond
v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303; Diamond v. Diehr, 450
U.S. 175; Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218; Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
132 S. Ct. 1289.
In O’Reilly v. Morse, the Court rejected Samuel
Morse’s claim to the use of “electromagnetism, however developed, for making or printing intelligible
characters, signs or letters, at any distances.” 56 U.S.,
at 112 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court
If this claim can be maintained, it matters
not by what process or machinery the result
is accomplished. For aught that we now
know, some future inventor, in the onward
march of science, may discover a mode of
writing or printing at a distance by means
of the electric or galvanic current, without
using any part of the process or combination set forth in the plaintiff’s specification.
His invention may be less complicated —
less liable to get out of order — less expensive in construction, and in its operation. But yet, if it is covered by this patent,
the inventor could not use it, nor the public
have the benefit of it, without the permission of this patentee.
In Benson, this Court considered the claim to a
method for converting numerical information from
binary-coded decimal numbers into pure binary numbers, for use in programming conventional generalpurpose digital computers. The Court concluded that
“[t]he mathematical formula involved here has no
substantial practical application except in connection
with a digital computer, which means that if the judgment below is affirmed, the patent would wholly preempt the mathematical formula involved and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself.”
409 U.S., at 71–72. Accordingly the claims were held
ineligible under §101.
In Parker v. Flook, the Court held that to be eligible
for patent protection, “[t]he process itself, not merely
the mathematical algorithm, must be new and useful.” 437 U.S., at 591; see also, Funk Brothers, 333
U.S., at 130. The Court further stated in Flook that
it is “incorrect[] [to] assume[] that if a process application implements a principle in some specific fashion, it
automatically falls within the patentable subject matter of §101.” 437 U.S., at 593. This Court explained
that such an assumption is based on an impermis8
sibly narrow interpretation of its precedents, including specifically Benson, and is “untenable” because
“[i]t would make the determination of patentable subject matter depend simply on the draftsman’s art, and
would ill serve the principles underlying the prohibition against patents for ‘ideas’ or phenomena of nature.” Id.
In alignment with Benson and Flook, this Court’s
decision in Diamond v. Diehr held that structures or
processes must, when considered as a whole, perform
functions intended to be covered by patent law in order
to be eligible for patent protection. 450 U.S., at 192.
In rejecting the patentability of a “business method”
implemented in computer software, the Court in Bilski stated that “[A]llowing [the claims] would preempt use of this approach in all fields, and would
effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract idea.”
130 S. Ct., at 3231. The Court also held that such
claims cannot be made patent eligible by “limiting an
abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components,” thereby affirming the rejection
of the claims under §101. Id.
More recently, in Mayo, while rejecting the claimed
processes as “routine, conventional activity previously
engaged in by researchers in the field,” the Court
stated that its decisions
warn us against interpreting patent
statutes in ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s
art’ without reference to the ‘principles
underlying the prohibition against patents
for [natural laws].’ Flook, 437 U.S., at 593.
They warn us against upholding patents
that claim processes that too broadly
preempt the use of natural law. Morse,
56 U.S., at 112–20. And they insist that
a process that focuses upon the use of a
natural law also contain other elements or
Benson, Flook, Diehr, and the other decisions of
this Court regarding patentable subject matter consistently establish that the inquiry into whether subject
matter is eligible for patenting is one of substance, not
This substantive standard ensures that skilled
patent draftsmanship is not capable of overcoming one
of the core doctrines of patent law recognized by this
Court for more than 150 years: that “[a] principle,
in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original
cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one
can claim in either of them an exclusive right.” Le Roy
v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156, 175 (1853).
C OMPUTER P ROGRAMS ARE A LGORITHMS
C OMPUTERS TO E XECUTE W RITTEN
IN H UMAN -R EADABLE T ERMS.
A LONE , W ITHOUT S PECIALIZED M ACHIN ERY OR THE T RANSFORMATION OF M ATTER , T HEY A RE N OT PATENTABLE , A S T HIS
C OURT H AS R EPEATEDLY H ELD
This Court has repeatedly addressed the issue
whether software is patentable subject matter, and
has never found software standing on its own an appropriate subject of patent monopoly, no matter how
the claims have been drafted.
In Microsoft v. AT&T, 550 U.S. 437 (2007), the Court
stated that software program code is an idea without
physical embodiment and is merely information—a
detailed set of instructions. Such abstract ideas without physical embodiment cannot be the subject of a
statutory patent monopoly because, “[a]n idea of itself
is not patentable.” Rubber-Tip Pencil v. Howard, 87
U.S. (20 Wall.) 498, 507 (1874).
A computer program, no matter what its function,
is nothing more or less than a collection of abstract
ideas comprising one or more algorithms. It is not conceptually different from a list of steps written down
with pencil and paper for execution by a human being.
In fact, computer software in source code form is precisely a list of steps written for the reading of human
beings, who can learn from, and fix errors in, the computer program represented. Further, just as claiming
fifty—or even a thousand—laws of nature is no more
patentable than claiming a single law of nature, no
form of software, regardless how many algorithms or
formulas it comprises, is patentable. In no uncertain
terms, this Court in Benson, 409 U.S., at 71–73, held
that software, which contains and upon command executes algorithms that solve mathematical problems
through the use of a computer, is not patentable under §101.
Thus, as the Court’s precedents unambiguously
show, software standing alone, without the presence of
a special purpose machine or the act of transforming
a particular article into a different state or thing, is
merely information, a representation of an algorithm
or algorithms, and not a “process” within the meaning
of §101.
This Court’s decision in Diamond v. Diehr is not to
the contrary. It followed the teaching of Benson, ap11
plied in substance the “machine or transformation”
test, and determined that the invention before the
Court was not substantially the software, but rather
the totality of an “industrial process for the molding
of rubber products,” which was undeniably included
within the realm of patentable subject matter. 450
U.S., at 191–93. Had the applicant sought to claim the
software used in that process by itself, however, the
Court would surely have found it to be unpatentable
subject matter just as it had in Benson. As the Diehr
[W]hen a claim recites a mathematical formula (or scientific principle or phenomenon
of nature), an inquiry must be made into
whether the claim is seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract. A
mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of patent laws, and
this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to
a particular technological environment.
This result—which makes software describing a
portion of the solution to a practical problem unpatentable on its own, outside the real-world context
of the problem and its solution—is not only in accord
with the rest of this Court’s patent jurisprudence, it
is also the best way to protect innovation in software,
and the only way that fully comports with both Article
I, §8 and the First Amendment.
Thus, this Court’s precedent repeatedly sets out
that software, which is nothing more than a set
of instructions—an algorithm—to be performed by
a computer in order to solve some technical or
mathematical problem, is subject matter that is not
patentable under §101.
T HE “M ACHINE OR T RANSFORMATION ” T EST
IS THE C ORRECT AND C OMPLETE T EST
OF PATENT E LIGIBILITY FOR C OMPUTER I MPLEMENTED I NVENTIONS
This Court held in Bilski v. Kappos that the “machine or transformation” approach is not the sole determinative measure of the patent eligibility of all processes. 130 S. Ct., at 3227. But the issue in the present
case is narrower than that posed to the Court in Bilski.
The question presented here concerns the patentability of computer software that duplicates the effects of
a process previously undertaken without the benefit of
computer assistance. No special apparatus or transformation of matter having been presented as part of
the claims, the subject matter is unpatentable. In this
narrower domain it is appropriate for the Court, in
line with its prior decisions, to hold that the “machine
or transformation” test is the exclusive test for patent
eligibility of computer-implemented inventions.
The Court in Bilski said that “there are reasons to
doubt” that the “machine or transformation” approach
can be the exclusive test for the patentability of “inventions in the Information Age.” 130 S. Ct., at 3227.
But when the question is narrowed to whether software standing alone should be patentable, there is little reason indeed for doubt. The Court has never so
far faced an instance in which the “machine or transformation” test failed to distinguish between patent
eligible and ineligible subject matter of this kind. Far
from being a source of uncertainty, as the Bilski Court
suggested it might be, Id., the “machine or transformation” test would provide substantial certainty now
lacking, by reinforcing the teaching of the unbroken
precedent of 150 years.
No doubt the pace of change in the area of information technology is rapid. As we show below,
the real lesson of contemporary technological development, however, is that patenting has had no positive
effect on innovation in software. Uncertainty about
what can be patented, on the other hand, has given
rise to enormously wasteful litigation. But whatever
the pace of innovation, it is unlikely to disclose what
has not yet appeared since the beginning of the Information Age: a case in which software standing
alone, that fails the “machine or transformation” test,
nonetheless is patentable subject matter. In the unlikely event that such a rara avis is observed in future, the Court can modify or add to the test. In the
meantime, the advantages of certainty that would accrue from the adoption of a clear, bright-line test that
cannot be defeated by mere cleverness of draftsmanship would far outweigh the speculative concerns expressed by the Court in Bilski.
II. Adhering to the Court’s Previous Decisions
on Patentability of Software Standing Alone
Does Not Imperil the Pace of Software Innovation
The nature of software, like mathematics or basic
scientific research, is that innovation is best produced
by free sharing. History shows that innovation in
software over the last generation has occurred first
in communities of free sharing, where patenting has
been systematically discouraged.
I NNOVATION IN S OFTWARE , L IKE I NNOVA TION IN M ATHEMATICS, IS E NCOURAGED BY
S CIENTIFIC P ROCESSES OF F REE S HARING
AND O PEN P UBLICATION, N OT BY G RANTING
S TATE -I SSUED M ONOPOLIES ON I DEAS
If mathematics were patentable, there would be less
mathematical innovation. Only those who were rich
enough to pay royalties, or who benefited from subsidization by government, or who were willing to sign
over the value of their ideas to someone richer and
more powerful than themselves, would be permitted
access to the world of abstract mathematical ideas.
Theorems build upon theorems, and so the contributions of those who could not pay rent—and all the further improvements based upon those contributions—
The principle that innovation is made possible by
the free exchange of ideas is not recent, and is not limited to software. Indeed, our constitutional system of
free expression since Thomas Jefferson is based on the
recognition that control of ideas by power has never
produced more ideas than their free and unrestricted
circulation. The history of western science since the
17th century is one long testament to this truth, and
it is that very history which gave rise to the patent
system, whose exclusion of “abstract ideas,” “laws of
nature,” and “algorithms” is as much a recognition of
the principle as is the basic constitutional policy of offering temporary legal benefits in return for prompt
and complete disclosure of technological discoveries to
T HE H ISTORY OF THE F REE S OFTWARE
M OVEMENT AND THE W ORLDWIDE A DOP TION OF F REE AND O PEN S OURCE S OFTWARE BY I NDUSTRY S HOWS T HAT PATENTING S OFTWARE H AS N OT C ONTRIBUTED TO
THE I MPORTANT S OFTWARE I NNOVATIONS
OF THE L AST G ENERATION
For more than a quarter century, beginning with a
few stalwart thinkers and exponentially increasing in
size and influence, a movement to build computer software by sharing—treating software programming languages like mathematical notation, for the expression
of abstract ideas to be studied, improved, and shared
again—has revolutionized the production of software
around the world. The “free software movement,” and
the developers of “open source software” (collectively
described hereinafter as “FLOSS developers”) believe,
like this Court, that computer software expresses abstract ideas. FLOSS developers therefore conclude
that the ideas themselves will grow best if left most
free to be learned and improved by all. Their conviction has been shared by hundreds of thousands—
soon millions—of programmers around the world, who
have devoted their skills to making new and innovative software through the social process that for centuries has been the heart of Western science: “share
FLOSS has become the single most influential body
of software around the world. In the more than
twenty years of its existence, FLOSS has taken the
world by storm and has driven the majority of the
world’s technological advancement in computer programming. FLOSS lives under the hood of it all—from
desktops and servers, to laptops, netbooks, smart16
phones, and “the cloud.” Linux, distributed under
the GNU General Public License of the Free Software
Foundation, is the operating system kernel in devices
such as mobile phones, networking equipment, medical devices, and other consumer electronics. Android,
which relies on Linux and includes the Java programming language and other software under the Apache
Software Foundation’s ALv2 license, currently has far
and away the largest market share in smartphone operating system software. There is no major or minor
computer hardware architecture, no class of consumer
electronics, no form of network hardware connecting
humanity’s telephone calls, video streams, or anything
else transpiring in the network of networks we call
“the Internet” that doesn’t make use of FLOSS. The
most important innovations in human society during
this generation, the World Wide Web and Wikipedia,
were based on and are now dominated by free software
and the idea of free knowledge sharing it represents.
Given the widespread use and availability of enterprise applications running on GNU/Linux in “the
cloud,” FLOSS presently provides the infrastructure
at the frontier of computing in society. Big Data analytics rely heavily on FLOSS, such as the Hadoop
project of the Apache Software Foundation.
The major technologies of the Web, from its beginning, have been embodied in software without patent
restrictions. In the early 1990s, CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, committed
the Web’s fundamental technologies, including initial
web-serving and web-browsing programs, to the public
domain. The flexibility and sophistication of the Web
we use today depends on freely available scripting languages such as Perl and PHP, invented by FLOSS developers who deliberately did not seek patent monop17
olies for them. From 2000, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which advances and standardizes the
technology of the Web, has required its recommended
technologies in its standards to be available royalty
free with respect to all patent claims of the companies
and parties participating in standards-making.
This explosion of technical innovation has occurred
for two primary reasons. First, the principal rule
of free software, the sharing of computer program
source code, has allowed young people around the
world to learn and to improve their skills by studying
and enhancing real software doing real jobs in their
own and others’ daily lives. Statutory monopolies
on ideas expressed in computer programs would have
prevented this process from occurring. Second, by creating a “protected commons” for the free exchange of
ideas embodied in program source code without rentseeking by parties holding state-granted monopolies,
FLOSS has facilitated cooperative interactions among
competing firms. Google, Facebook, Twitter and other
information services used by billions of individuals
worldwide could not exist without FLOSS and the collaboration it has spawned.
The FLOSS developers and projects that comprise
this world-wide movement generally do not own any
patents, not only because they have no resources to
file for state-granted monopolies, but also because the
monopolization of ideas contradicts their fundamental
This Court has recognized the growth and innovation in the software industry in the absence of patent
protection. In Benson, the Court noted that “ ‘the
creation of programs has undergone substantial and
satisfactory growth in the absence of patent protection and that copyright protection for programs is
presently available.’ ” 409 U.S., at 72 (quoting “To
Promote the Progress of . . . Useful Arts,” Report of
the President’s Commission on the Patent System
(1966)). In Diehr, the Court subsequently observed
that “[n]otwithstanding fervent argument that patent
protection is essential for the growth of the software
industry, commentators have noted that ‘this industry
is growing by leaps and bounds without it.’ ” 450 U.S.,
at 217 (internal citations omitted).
Mere speculative doubts about the “machine or
transformation” test in the “Information Age,” Bilski,
130 S. Ct., at 3227, must give way to the reality of
contemporary information technology. Sharing makes
software innovation. Patenting of software standing
alone constitutes the monopolization of ideas, which
not only violates our constitutional principles but also
interferes practically with software innovation. If this
Court holds firmly to its prior course, technological innovation in software will continue to flourish. Otherwise we can expect more patent war, less product innovation, and less freedom of thought and invention
III. The First Amendment Prohibits Construing the Patent Act to Permit the Patenting
This Court held in Eldred, 537 U.S., at 219, that the
First Amendment precludes the extension of statutory
monopolies to abstract ideas. As the Court then observed, the near-simultaneous adoption of the Patent
and Copyright Clause and the First Amendment indicates that these provisions are fundamentally compatible. Id. This compatibility, however, depends on
a construction of the patent and copyright acts that
preserves First Amendment principles, including the
freedom to communicate any “idea, theory, and fact.”
Eldred identified two mechanisms in copyright law
that are necessary to accommodate this principle.
First, the idea/expression dichotomy limits copyright’s
monopoly to an author’s expression, leaving ideas “instantly available for public exploitation.” Id. Second, the fair use doctrine allows the public to use
even copyrighted expression for some purposes, “such
as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching. . . ,
scholarship, or research.” Id. at 220.
Patent statutes, which depend on the same constitutional grant of authority as copyright statutes,
are similarly limited by the First Amendment. See
id. at 201 (“Because the Clause empowering Congress
to confer copyrights also authorizes patents, congressional practice with respect to patents informs our
inquiry”). The presence of an unwavering exemption for abstract ideas reconciles patent law with
the First Amendment in a fashion similar to the
idea/expression dichotomy’s crucial role in reconciling copyright and freedom of speech. The presence of
a limiting principle is even more necessary with respect to patent law than with respect to copyright, because, as the Court observed in Eldred, “the grant of
a patent . . . prevent[s] full use by others of the inventor’s knowledge.” Id. at 217 (internal citation omitted).
Patents can and do limit the application of knowledge
to produce a new machine or to transform an article
into a different state or thing, but they cannot constitutionally limit the communication of knowledge or
ideas. Eldred teaches that, without this limitation,
determining the scope of patent eligibility in each in20
dividual case would raise First Amendment questions
Patent law also recognizes no analogue to fair use,
previously described by this Court as the second bulkwark of constitutional harmony between copyright
and free expression. Id. at 219–20. The absence of
any provision for fair use substantially increases the
constitutional difficulty when patents are sought and
granted for expressions of abstract ideas.
Without the “machine or transformation” test, dissemination of software standing alone, in source code
form, could result in patent infringement. This would
fatally disturb the “definitional balance” between the
First Amendment and the Patent Act. Id. at 219 (quoting Harper & Row, Publishers v. Nation Enterprises,
471 U.S. 539, 556 (1985)). In its unprocessed source
code form, software is merely the expression of abstract ideas in human language—a description of a
sequence of steps that will produce a particular result (i.e. an “algorithm”). The source code of a program which performs the steps described in a software
patent is distinguishable from the literal patent only
in that it expresses the same steps in a different language. Therefore, since anyone may copy or publish
the actual patent without infringing, it must also be
permissible to communicate its claims in source code
The sharing of source code is also essential to “scholarship and comment,” two categories of speech recognized in Eldred, 537 U.S., at 220, and Harper &Row,
471 U.S, at 560, as particular First Amendment concerns. Computer science textbooks, for example, rely
heavily on source code and pseudo-code to communicate concepts and describe useful algorithms. See, e.g.,
Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie, The C
Programming Language (Prentice Hall 1978). Likewise, computer science students are often required to
express their answers to test questions in a real or hypothetical programming language. And without the
use of source code, it is difficult for developers to comment on whether an idea can be implemented, to comment on an algorithm’s performance, or to suggest improvements.
The “machine or transformation” test serves the
purpose of securing accommodation with the First
Amendment by ensuring that patent claims on
computer-implemented inventions cannot be comprised solely of ideas communicated in computer program code. By requiring a physical special-purpose
apparatus or a material transformation, the test implements a construction of §101 that automatically
avoids conflict with the First Amendment. If the “machine or transformation” test is not the exclusive delimitation of §101 as applied to computer-implemented
inventions, what alternative proposal do petitioners
and their amici advance to avoid First Amendment
The “machine or transformation” test evolved over
150 years of this Court’s jurisprudence should be affirmed as the necessary criterion for the patenting of
inventions implemented in software.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision below should
IP Basics The business owner’s guide to understanding your IP
Document 134582
PATENT MEDICINE: Cures & Quacks
How to Improve Patent Claim Interpretations Introduction
From the Idea to a Patent www.bardehle.com
Provisional Patent Applications Nolo’s Guide to
Patents: Application Guide
How To fIlE a PaTENT IN lUxEMBoURg aN aPPlICaNT’s gUIDE
IP LITIGATION COSTS WIPO’S NEW TOP MANAGEMENT