Computerized business methods -- Patentable? Part 2

In part 1 of this week's topic, I examined the highly discussed Alice Corp vs CLS Bank case in which a computerized business method involving managing transaction risks is being debated for patent eligibility. So should computer-implemented inventions such as software be eligible for patent protection? Many companies and organizations have responded to the case with their takes on the topic.

• Microsoft, Adobe Systems and Hewlett-Packard are arguing that performing "an otherwise unpatentable idea on a general-purpose computer' does not make the idea patentable" because it does not actually involve a true computer-implemented invention but rather it is a business method posing as one.

• Linkedin and Netflix are saying that "software patents do not serve the Constitutional purpose of the patent system: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts ... innovation happens despite software patents, not because of them". 

• Software Freedom Law Center is even stating that "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."

These are all very interesting stances posed by different groups in the tech realm. I definitely agree with Microsoft in that an old idea does not automatically become patentable simply for being done through a computer -- though it is a novel way of doing things, it is an act that becomes quite obvious with the advancement of technology in my opinion. I can't say I agree with Linkedin and the Software Freedom Law Center completely. I think software definitely brings value to the progression of innovation for it is at the heart of the development of technology and should deserve the right to be patentable to a certain extent to say the least. Though the nature of software makes it hard to maintain its exclusivity since it is easily replicable, I think other measures should be taken to ensure that software developers are still being rewarded for their work.

Source: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/28/supreme-court-to-decide-when-ideas-become-too-abstract-to-patent/