Today's Date: December 17, 2014 Search | Home | Contact | Services | Patent Attorney | Patent Search | Provisional Patent Application | Patent Application | Software Patent | Confidentiality Agreements

History of Software Patents II: Arrhythmia Research

Written by Gene Quinn
Patent Attorney & Founder of IPWatchdog, Inc.
Principal Lecturer, PLI Patent Bar Review Course
Posted: April 1, 2009 @ 7:30 am

View Gene Quinn's profile on LinkedIn

Tell A Friend!

This article has been significantly updated. Please see:


Software Patent History III: The Federal Circuit Decides Arrhythmia Research and Alappat.



- - - - - - - - - -

For information on this and related topics please see these archives:

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Computers, Federal Circuit, Gene Quinn, IP News, Articles, Patents, Software, Software Patent Basics, US Supreme Court

About the Author

is a Patent Attorney and the founder of the popular blog, which has for three of the last four years (i.e., 2010, 2012 and 2103) been recognized as the top intellectual property blog by the American Bar Association. He is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course. As an electrical engineer with a computer engineering focus his specialty is electronic and computer devices, Internet applications, software and business methods.


Leave a comment »

  1. “why not try something radical, like actually enforcing the laws and rules? ”

    Amen. ‘nuf said.

  2. > “The resulting information, whether on a monitor or on a chart, is then interpreted and lives can be saved.”

    > “I see absolutely no reason to prevent such useful, worthwhile and important innovations from receiving patent [sic] (monopoly) protection [sic] (weapon). ”
    What does society gain by granting a monopoly on life saving?

    > “It seems to me that if the patent system is intended to encourage innovation for the benefit of people…”
    The patent system is intended to secure monopoly rights to the owner (corporation), and the preponderance of the evidence now shows that innovation and people are what suffer under the patent regime.

    > “… then the patent laws should encourage and then reward this very type of invention.”
    They should but they don’t. It would be the absence of patentability (monopoly) that produces invention. Today scientists have no almost no doubt that what they practice (pursuit of knowledge and innovation) — even in the most advanced and cutting-edge fields– could be found to “infringe” upon some of the millions of existing worldwide claims. Invention and sharing produces greater (farther-reaching) reward all by itself, and certainly more economic reward without the fetters of the anachronistic patent regime.

  3. Greg-

    Society gains the life saving. You see, no one will spend the time and money to invent in the first place if there is no financial reward. If you believe otherwise then you should simply refuse to take any medicine, because medicines would not be created but for the ability to make money by those who create the medicine. You can believe that invention is something that people will want to do for free, but that simply ignores reality.

    If you really believe patents hamper innovation you really should do some research. Patents enhance innovation and anyone who tells you otherwise is simply not telling the truth. Those who believe patents hamper innovation simply do not understand patent law and rather than educating themselves they chose to remain ignorant in the belief that they understand what a patent is and what a patent prevents. Sad really that such ignorance reigns supreme.

    The absence of patents will not produce invention. Quite to the contrary. Without recognizing exclusive rights there will be no investment and without investment there will be no real significant innovation. If you want to believe in fantasy that is fine, but we cannot allow something as important as science, innovation and economic stability to be governed by unsupported opinions and fantasy about the way things should be. Reality needs to matter.

    It is odd to ask scientists who have absolutely no understanding of patent law whether patent law would render their activities infringing. The truth is that most people think that if it is in a patent you cannot do it, rather than concerning themselves with the legal reality. I had someone tell me the other day that something was listed in the Abstract, and that defines what the patent covers. That is legally not true, and those who want to remain ignorant about the law and choose to believe things that are incorrect must suffer the consequences. That, however, is not a patent law problem, that is a you problem, and one that suggests you are extremely lazy and don’t care enough to be informed.