Well, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may have made a pretty big step in the right direction as they delivered a ruling that should restricts patents for software and business methods. Basically, the court emphasized that these patents need to meet one of two specific criteria for them to be valid – a patent needs to be tied to a specific machine or it needs to change something from one “state” to another.

On the surface, the ruling would seem to invalidate most current software patents. Things like Amazon’s “One-Click” patent or Channel Intelligence’s Wish-List patent could be first on the chopping block, but with most rulings, there’s definitely some wiggle room for interpretation. Both could claim that their patents are tied to their Web servers or that they “change the state” of their website using the patented concept. Obviously both are a huge stretch, but it’s those huge stretches that allow patent trolls to patent some fairly obvious ideas so that they can sue others later.

It will be some time before we see any impact this latest ruling will have on the patent industry. There’s a good chance an appeal will be sent to the Supreme Court and even if the Supreme Court agrees with the ruling, the effects of the decision will likely take some time to be implemented. Either way, it definitely does seem like a pretty big step in the right direction.

This reminds me of the absurdity of Amazon’s One-Click patent which basically had Amazon controlling the rights to one click purchases on websites. Seems like something somebody made up as a spoof or something right? Well, I wish it was just a joke, and while Amazon’s One-Click patent was partially restricted, much of it still exists.

Most would agree that the United States patent and trademark system is incredibly flawed – especially when it comes to the internet, but it seems like nothing is being done to fix it. How can a company sue other companies for such an obvious “idea” like a wishlist? You aren’t supposed to take a common non-internet concept like a wishlist, apply it to the internet, and then patent the internet form of that concept. Of course, the patent in question is so broad that it’s hard to tell exactly what they “invented” that needed a patent – though odds are that their only invention was the patent itself to sue people who actually do anything with the technology.

Also, let me say that I’m definitely not one of those people who think all patents and trademarks should be removed. I think that those who genuinely do create something new and unique should be able to protect their inventions and profit from their ideas. However, patent trolls should not be allowed to abuse the system by hording vague patents on concepts that shouldn’t have even been patentable in the first place.