Talk:Machine-or-transformation test

Importance

The rating of LOW IMPORTANCE does not square with the fact that the US Supreme Court will shortly hear argument in Bilski v. Kappos to decide whether the Machine-or-transformation test should be the proper (or sole) test of patent-eligibility for processes. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we had a project on intellectual property, I would venture that it would be rated as having high importance there. In the whole of the field of law, however, this particular test is far less important than, for example, Contract, or Due process (or even Patent). bd2412 T 22:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BD, maybe I am just biased because that subject is what I teach and have been working on for 40 years, but I don't think so. The issue of whether business methods can be patented is of enormous interest to American business, as reflected in expressed congressional concern and academic comment. __ PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Consider also the enormous number of amicus curiae briefs filed in this case. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the low importance rating is appropriate here. An article on Intellectual Property or Patent is one that ought to be rated High. An article on subtopics like Inventive step and non-obviousness and Patentable subject matter as Medium. But the test itself? Clearly Low, in the great scheme of things. Someone interested in Law (which is the scope of the project) would not have "Machine-or-transformation test" at the top of their list of things to read about. TJRC (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The present importance is mainly historical. The test is one of the many faulty tests that were ventured over the past decades to substantiate the exclusion of "abstract ideas" developed by the Supreme Court in a more distant past. Rbakels (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"dates back to the nineteenth century"

Is there a case or source in support of this point? bd2412 T 05:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See O'Reilly v. Morse and other 19th c c ases cited in the Benson opinion. PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, far more important is the Cochrane v. Deener opinion (U.S. Supreme Court 19 March 1877, 94 U.S. 780). It almost literally mentions the "machine or transformation test", with the emphasis on "almost", since that decision noted that in the absence of a new machine, a process still may be patented if it causes a transformation "to a different state or thing". These words within the context of the opinion clearly indicate that transformation is considered a sufficient rather than necessary condition. Cochrane v. Deener purports to an extension rather than a reduction of patentable subject-matter. The logic of the decision is that transformations may add value too, so they are economically relevant. Rbakels (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is satisfying the test a necessary condition for patent-eligibility, a sufficient condition, or both?

Points for the experts:

Are the examples dicussed wrt footnotes 27, 28 and 29 really eligible for patenting (hypothetically)? Assuming someone did devise such machines to clean clothes, would they not be challenged on grounds of 'lack of novelty'? Can a better example be provided instead?

Regarding the clothes-washing examples, wouldn't the fact that the clothes become clean satisfy the transformation test? Pretzalcoatl (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also wrt the example illustrating the proposition that satisfying the machine-or-transformation test is not a sufficient condition for patent-eligibility ("apparatus for exercising a cat") wouldn't that patent fail the test of non-obviousness and also perhaps novelty? Is the emphasis given in the article to the question of the utility of this 'useful Art' justified, since patents have not been denied on the 'degree of utility?' Could a better example have been used? (Prmsm (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Lack of novelty is immaterial. The issue is patent-eligibility, not patentability. BTW the cat patent is an ISSUED patent. PraeceptorIP (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After certiorari of Bilski v. Kappos, the test is not even sufficient, let alone necessary. It is identified as a "clue", which IMHO is a polite way of abandoning the test. Previous tests like the "FWA-test" in the 1980's suffered the same fate. Long before they formally were abandoned, they fell into oblivion. Rbakels (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courts are still using this test in 2014 and 2015. Unlike FWA, it hasn't fallen into oblivion. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...it is now clear that this test is only a way to measure whether the patent claim in issue preempts substantially all applications of the underlying idea or principle on which a patent is based" is flat-out wrong. The "test" is not even a test anymore, and it gives rise to no legal conclusions. This entire article needs to be cut by 80%, or simply deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7101:6900:5400:DEE9:8011:27AE (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court has held that this is not the only test

There is a font problem in the 2nd par. and I don't know how to fix it. Would someone else please fix it? PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Machine-or-transformation test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100715021201/http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/fusco-bilski-deja-vu.pdf to http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/fusco-bilski-deja-vu.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Numerous legal commentators praised the "machine-or-transformation" test"

I don't think this is NPOV, and later SCOTUS decisions showed that this test is deficient to draw a proper line between patentable and non-patentable subject-matter. Transformation is actually the process of adding value, which is necessary but by no means sufficient. "Upstream" subject-matter like mere science should at least be excluded. Rbakels (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]