Baltimore mortgage lender says his patent was rendered invalid by a Supreme Court decision

[TexasTowelie]

Imagine having invested your time and money into developing an innovative software product and then several years later having the rights to your invention rendered virtually worthless due to a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

But that is exactly what happened to a Baltimore-based mortgage lender who invented an application that expedites the mortgage application approval process after the high court ruled in the 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision that certain abstract ideas could not in-and-of themselves be patented and therefore opening the door to third-party duplication.

“When the Alice 101 decision was made it invalidated anything that was considered abstract. But the guidelines for how they determine whether a patent is abstract do not make sense. And that is why it is being appealed,” Larry Porter told MarylandReporter.com. “It makes no sense at all. And it is ruining the industry.”

Porter, who has been in the mortgage lending business for more than 3o years, said his patent was approved in October 2013, after his application had mysteriously been “misplaced” by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for eight years before they discovered the mistake and fixed it.

Read more: https://marylandreporter.com/2021/07/27/baltimore-mortgage-lender-says-his-patent-was-rendered-invalid-by-a-supreme-court-decision/

[ShazamIam]

1. That is a really crooked majority on the current Supremes, I wonder whhich kochnetwork billionaire

will end up with the patent?

[PoliticAverse]

2. The court decision was unanimous. Software patents are a bad idea...

Escrow is not a patentable invention, and merely using a computer system to manage escrow debts does not rise to the level needed for a patent.

[ShazamIam]

3. Oh well they are still sold out crooks, and there are software patents and I haven't heard that

kind of talk since the national dialogue went off tech a few years back, the software shouldn't be patented.

The only reason I would agree with that is because our R & D for high tech is heavily funded with tax money. One big driver was the technology needed for the moon shot and a great way to make the public love technology, it served so many purposes and accomplished so much good and countless consumer products and I apologize for the rant.

My point is if it can't be patentable it is because of the taxpayer's investment in both hardware and software advances.

I'll add, instead of or along with taxes all the corporations thriving on the basis of tax funded research and protected globally by the tax supported military, those corporations should be paying a royalty all of them now, even non tech stuff like ag relies on high tech.

Edit: error in first line and to add:

https://fedtechmagazine.com/article/2018/09/how-government-helped-spur-microchip-industry