US Judge Rules Mathematical Algorithms Can Not Be Patented

'A plague on innovation, economic growth and job creation.'

That is the widely held view of lawsuits based on patent violations of dubious merit. That a US judge has now ruled that mathematical algorithms can not be patented is significant, but probably as much for the process it sets in train as for the weight of the opinion itself.

The reason for this is that many mathematical algorithms are already effectively patented. As the following article explains, these include Google's PageRank and Facebook's EdgeRank. The implication of the ruling is that it will probably be appealed, which may send this case to the US Supreme Court for a definitive judgement.

The issue raises broad issues about the patentability of certain ideas or concepts as well as more specific questions about the determination of validity. In itself, clarifying validity could simplify the process by which legal challenges are adjudicated or dismissed.

This is yet another example of how the importance of intellectual capital has become central to the debate about the future of the knowledge economy. It may be too much to hope for absolute clarity, but by focusing attention on these matters, there is a growing possibility that this area of the law and the economy will no longer be left to those who have counted on the inattention or ignorance of mainstream businesses. JL

Marti Trewe reports in Tech News:

Chief Judge Leonard Davis of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Eastern District of Texas has dismissed a patent claim¹ filed in 2012 by Uniloc USA against Rackspace, ruling that mathematical algorithms cannot be patented.
Uniloc claimed that the processing of floating point numbers by the Linux operating system was a patent violation, but even non-tech people should take note of this case as it could impact similar cases.
The ruling immediately raised eyebrows as there are numerous algorithms already patented like Google PageRank and Facebook’s EdgeRank, both of which use a mathematical algorithm to operate. Critics of the suit were frustrated as there are so many mathematical components that are patented, even segments of DNA have patents on them, as do corn kernels that have been slightly modified by Monsanto. Advocates note that Uniloc was not properly prepared for the case which is truly why it was thrown out, not necessarily the algorithm.
Rackspace notes that this is the first time this District Court has granted an early motion to dismiss finding a patent invalid because it claimed unpatentable subject matter.
According to TechCrunch, Red Hat supplies Linux to Rackspace and says that they have a policy of standing behind customers through its Open Source Assurance program.
Rob Tiller, Red Hat’s Assistant General Counsel for IP told TechCrunch, “NPE patent lawsuits are a chronic and serious problem for the technology industry. Such lawsuits, which are frequently based on patents that should never have been granted, typically cost millions of dollars to defend. These suits are a plague on innovation, economic growth, and job creation. Courts can help address this problem by determining the validity of patents early and with appropriate care. In this case, Judge Davis did just that, and set a great example for future cases.”
Will other judges rule as Judge Davis did, or will they buy into the idea that all algorithms are mathematical and can therefore be protected? Was this a case of poor preparation or a court that doesn’t understand the intricacies of math? Does it matter if a judge is simply ruling based on the existing law?