‘Step two is described “as a search for an ‘inventive concept.’”’
We agree that the court got it right, but we believe from a practical and legal standpoint there is a far simpler path which is less likely to confuse lower courts who are not nearly so experienced with the technologies and applicable laws, and is far more consistent with the intent of the founders.
President James Madison wrote in Federalist no 10:
“The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the RIGHTS OF PROPERTY originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the FIRST object of government.”
As in the Constitution, the simplest and most direct test is 1) does the invention ‘promote the Progress of Science’, and 2) is it ‘useful’. These unnecessarily complex and vague guidelines used presently by the courts which ignore the clear wording of the Constitution not surprisingly lead to unpredictable results. Whether the fault lies with SCOTUS’s recent decisions such as Alice, may be viewed as immaterial. The end result is the same…weak at best, property rights. We suggest the courts and Congress revert to the unambiguous and simple approach of our Constitution to clarify and restore the correct protections for what President Madison called, ‘the faculties’ of America’s inventors.
For our position and the changes we advocate to truly reform the patent system, or to join our effort, please visit us at https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/category/our-position/
or, contact us at email@example.com