Skip to content


Wait…Machine? Transformation? What?

Some of my faithful readers will note that on Friday’s second post I mentioned that Apple’s patent application might be valid even if other pure software patents are invalidated because it seemingly involved both a machine and a transformation.

This is not a patent blog, nor a Supreme Court or Federal Circuit blog, but I shall attempt to explain what those keywords meant on the off chance that I get readers who are not already legal scholars. Keep in mind that this is mostly my own words, and may be inaccurate in places.

For patents to be considered valid, they have to be new inventions, which are non-obvious in light of prior research and invention. How does the patent office determine whether something is non-obvious? They apply a test, which is usually to imagine the inventor in his workshop surrounded by all the publications (including patents) on the relevant subject matter, and see if there was anything that would preempt the invention in question. Patent law, unlike copyright law, requires that the invention be new against the world, so even if the inventor never actually saw or heard about a prior invention or piece of research, if that publication predates his application by long enough, then his invention is obvious, and cannot be patented.

However, the other aspect to a patent is that it has to be useful. An invention has to *do* something. It’s one of the earlier requirements for IP law, right up there with a copyright protecting creative work. Purely mental exercises aren’t patentable, neither are natural phenomena or formulae, but a bioengineered plant or protein string might be, provided it is novel.

How does the court determine if a patent does something? They apply the “machine or transformation” test, which requires the claims of the patent to either be based around a physical machine, or cause something to transform into something else. While the recent Bilski decision by the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the test, there did not appear to be a majority of the Justices who could agree on a replacement, stating only that Bilski’s patent application was rightly denied.

The Federal Circuit, who deal with patent cases as a special court, may have applied the machine or transformation test too narrowly, and it may be time for a new set of criteria to determine patentability. Until new cases are determined, however, it is unlikely that any new test will be widely adopted.


Questions? Comments? Use the Contact Form!

Posted in Tuesday: Potpourri.


Does there have to be an app for that?

Last Friday, the blogosphere exploded with the news that Apple had filed a patent application for an application that would turn a video game session into a digital comic book. This blog also covered the news, getting another two or three readers interested in the story.

But what about the rise of apps? With the ability to run software from other sources besides the Apple iTunes store, users could soon face the same performance problems that plague other gaming platforms. Certainly one major reason given for Apple’s continued control of applications running on the iPhone or iPad would be that Apple wants to ensure that everything operates well, and meets the high standards needed to be accepted into the App store.

However, legal minds may question whether Apple really needs to maintain the high level of diligence they currently enforce. Every update for iTunes requires the user to accept the newest form of the License Agreement, and licensed use of the Apple trademarks is covered in overlapping, confusing, and occasionally redundant guidelines.

It is true that Apple cannot engage in what is known as “naked licensing” where the company purports to license only the trademark, without any of the goodwill or consumer recognition built up by the company, but current US law requires only that Apple maintain standards for their licensees, and have a quality control system in place to make sure the standards are being met. As stated in Barcamerica International v. Tyfield Importers:

It is important to keep in mind that “quality control” does not necessarily mean that the licensed goods or services must be of “high” quality, but merely of equal quality, whether that quality is high, low or middle. The point is that customers are entitled to assume that the nature and quality of goods and services sold under the mark at all licensed outlets will be consistent and predictable. (emphasis in original)

Does Apple’s control over iPhone/iPad development need to be rigid to maintain consistent quality? No, of course not. The threshold could be set much lower, at mere operability instead of optimized performance, or without having an actual person review each submission for publication.

Does this mean that Apple should not exert such control? Not necessarily. Trademarks, unlike copyrights or patents, are only as valuable as the consumer’s impression of them. The standards require iPhone developers to disclaim any connection to Apple in advertising their app, and most users seem to understand that developers are independent from the mobile phone itself. It is easier to relax high standards once the need to maintain that level of scrutiny has passed than to increase the level of attention paid to the details after something goes wrong.


Questions? Comments? Use the Contact Form!

Posted in Monday: Legal Landscape.


Breaking News: An App that turns your Video Game into a Comic

This idea is brilliant.

Apple just filed for a patent for a computer program (app) that can turn a user’s video game experience into a personalized comic, able to be printed, and physically held like a real comic book, or explored entirely online, through your personal cloud remote (iPhone/iPad).

What an idea! And there’s a machine AND a transformation involved, so even if the Supreme Court disallows pure business method or software patents, this one could potentially stick around for quite some time.


Questions? Comments? Use the Contact Form!

Posted in Make-Up Post.