Rare good news
link here. The Canadian Patent Appeal Board ruled against business method patents in a case involving Amazon's one-click patent. Usually, US patent holders with the support of our federal government are able to muscle other countries into applying similar legal standards.
The ruling included this statement, "since patenting business methods would involve a radical departure from the traditional patent regime, and since the patentability of such methods is a highly contentious matter, clear and unequivocal legislation is required for business methods to be patentable."
The Canadian ruling comes at a time when the US Supreme Court has accepted a case on the same basic question. The Canadian ruling is important for opponents of such patents because it will be harder for the US to rule differently. I do not go into the merits of the patent as it raises all the usual questions about prior art and obviousness to which so many take exception--just not the courts and the patent owners.
Said "unequivocal legislation" doubtless soon to follow, as immense IP-Industry machinery contends with widespread voter disinterest for the attention of MPs/Congressmen.
We might have a chance in America if the Supreme Court rules that a constitutional amendment would be needed to allow copyright to apply to any process not of the physical, "turn bauxite into aluminum" variety. Such an amendment would still be pushed hard, and presented as pro-business in trying economic times (for whatever that's worth), but raising enough of a stink that it doesn't get the two-thirds majority needed to pass seems more acheivable.
Good news indeed. I am hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will do the right thing here as well.
Developing more efficient business methods is a self-incentivizing endeavor. You don't need to IP monopolies to "encourage" businesses to do so.
I've always found it funny to see people try and justify business method patents on "free market" principles when it is among the most anti-competitive policies that a state can conceive of.
BTW - Nick Novitski: You use the word 'copyright' in your comment, when I think you meant to use the word 'patent'. But your overall comment is well taken.
