In light of the Alice case, are patents for ideas such as HotOrNot still considered enforceable?
<p>The <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Alice case</a> seems to have set the precedent for invalidating a number of software/internet patents. I am curious what this implies for ideas (as well as implementations) which are obviously unique, specifically, in the case of such things as such as HotOrNot, user-rating/ranking systems, etc. </p>

<p><a href="https://www.google.ch/patents/US20120096362" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rating associated members in a social network</a></p>

<p><a href="https://www.google.com/patents/US8190444" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Self images for viewing and rating (or voting) by viewers</a></p>

<p>As a general guide, judgments that start with "The Court has long held ..." don't add much new to the law.</p>

<p>You have never been able to patent an abstract idea, you need an invention. That is, a specific implementation of an idea: it doesn't have to be realised but it has to be realisable without further need for invention. This means that, armed only with the patent and normal professional/technical knowledge someone could actually build it. Similarly it must display ingenuity, you cannot patent things that are obvious.</p>

<p>Despite the best efforts of patent offices many patents are granted that may not meet these criteria: that's why a patent can be challenged in court. An invalid patent may stand for many years (or even expire) without ever being reviewed by a court.</p>

patents intellectual-property