SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK

Whistleblowers' testimony isprotected By Sam Hananel Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - The First Amendment protects public employees from job retaliation when they are called to testify in court about official corruption, the Supreme Court ruled last Thursday. The unanimous decision pleased whistleblower advocates, who said it could encourage more government workers to cooperate with prosecutors in public fraud cases without fear of losing their livelihoods. The justices decided in favor of Edward Lane, a former Alabama community college official who says he was fired after testifying at the criminal fraud trial of a state lawmaker. Lower courts had ruled against Lane, finding that he was testifying as a college employee, not as a citizen. Writing for the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Lane's testimony was constitutionally protected because he was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern, even if it covered facts he learned at work. In past cases, the court has said that public employees generally do not have free-speech rights when they discuss matters learned at their jobs. But Sotomayor said sworn testimony in judicial proceedings "is a quintessential example of speech as a citizen for a simple reason: Anyone who testifies in court bears an obligation, to the court and society at large, to tell the truth." Sotomayor was careful to note that Lane's job responsibilities did not include testifying in court proceedings. She said the court was not addressing whether the ruling would apply to other public workers, such as police officers or crime investigators, who routinely testify in court. "This ruling gives a green light to all public employees who have information concerning official corruption and fraud and want to expose these crimes," said Stephen Kohn, executive director of the National Whistleblower Center. He predicted the decision would have a "wide impact" on investigations of securities, banking and tax fraud. Lane was director of a college youth program at Central Alabama Community College in 2006 when he discovered that a state lawmaker, Sue Schmitz, was on the payroll but not showing up for work. Lane fired Schmitz despite warnings that doing so could jeopardize his own job. Federal prosecutors began investigating Schmitz, and Lane was later called to testify before a federal grand jury and under subpoena at Schmitz's two criminal fraud trials. Lane claimed he was fired in retaliation and sued Steve Franks, the former college president, as well as the college's current president, Susan Burrow. Lane lost at the trial court and before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court also found that Franks was shielded from liability because he was acting as a public official. While the Supreme Court ruled for Lane on the First Amendment issue, it was only a partial victory. The court ruled that Franks, as a public employee, was immune from damages. Public officials are shielded from being sued in their official capacity unless they violate a law that was "clearly established" at the time. Sotomayor said that under the 11th Circuit's opinions at the time Lane was fired, it wasn't yet clear that public employees who testified in court had First Amendment protection. The court remanded the case for further consideration of the claims against Burrows. Andrew Brasher, solicitor general in the Alabama attorney general's office, said the case now returns to a lower court for review of Lane's request to be reinstated. Brasher said the state will argue Lane can't win his claim against Burrows because state employees have immunity, the position no longer exists and he was fired because his program ran out of money, not because of his testimony in the public corruption trial. The case is Lane v. Franks, 13-483. -------- Associated Press writer Phillip Rawls in Montgomery, Alabama, contributed to this report. â??Abstract' software patent tossed By Sam Hananel Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court last Thursday tossed out an Australian company's patent for business software in a decision that clarifies standards for awarding patents, but not as much as some firms had hoped. In a case closely watched by technology companies, justices ruled unanimously that the government should not have issued a patent to Alice Corp. in the 1990s because the company simply took an abstract idea that has been around for years and programmed it to run through a computer. The decision makes clear that to obtain a patent, a company's idea must actually improve how a computer functions or make other technical advancements. It could also help technology firms mount a stronger defense against so-called patent trolls - companies that buy up patents and force businesses to pay license fees or face costly litigation. The software at issue allows a neutral third party to make sure all parties to a financial trade have lived up to their obligations. New York-based CLS Bank International claimed the patent was invalid. "We conclude that the method claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention," Justice Clarence Thomas said, writing for the court. Dozens of technology firms - including Google and Facebook - submitted friend of the court briefs in the case, asking the high court to restrict the free flow of software patents they say are often too vague and can block other companies from innovation. But other companies, such as IBM, warned that too many new restrictions could nullify thousands of existing patents and discourage companies from investing in research and development. John L. Cuddihy, a patent attorney in the nation's capital, said the court's decision offers "clarity and helpful guideposts," but "wisely tried not to over-specify the standards for determining eligibility of computer-based patents." He said the ruling makes it easier for companies fighting patent troll litigation to argue that flimsy patents should not have been granted in the first place. But Jennifer Spaith, a Seattle patent attorney, said the court could have offered more guidance on how patent standards should apply to the latest innovations, such as wearable technology, cloud computing and social media that are changing how people communicate and work. "The Supreme Court did not offer tools for identifying patentable subject matter in these other intangible areas, so patentees will continue to battle uncertainty in these spaces," Spaith said. Patents give inventors legal protection to prevent others from making, using or selling a novel device, process or application. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that abstract ideas, natural phenomena and laws of nature cannot be patented. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had ruled that Alice Corp.'s patent was invalid, but only five of those on the 10-member panel of judges could agree on why. The Obama administration had urged the court to invalidate the Alice patent and asked the justices offer more clarity to help lower courts decide what is and isn't valid. The administration said several factors should be considered, including whether the software improves how the computer functions or uses a computer to improve how another technological process works. The case is Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 13-298. Published: Mon, Jun 23, 2014