A recent Supreme Court ruling is generating some interesting and important discussion on the role of patents in innovation and economic growth. Some sectors see the ruling as "an attack on patents" that will hurt small business, devalue patents and retard innovation and growth, as described by Small Times. The Boston Globe on the other hand sees it as a victory for software companies, implying a certain loss to consumers.

The ruling changes Supreme Court thinking on what makes an invention obvious. If an invention is obvious, then it should not be protected by a patent (check here for a discussion of the ruling)

The ruling gets at a key trade-off in patent policy: if information -particularly basic, obvious information- can move around freely, then more competition among companies will be possible, small businesses will benefit and with them the entire economy and consumers. On the other hand, if the incentive to innovate is significantly reduced, then innovation will suffer and with it the entire economy. Past articles in this blog have discussed criticisms of patent policy. I wonder if anyone would like to comment on this ruling in that context.