It's no secret in the tech world that there have been a lot of ridiculous software patents over the years, but the one taken to court by patent-holding company Ultramercial stands out. The patent, invented by Dana Howard Jones, basically describes a process of watching an online ad in exchange for viewing a video. An appeals court opinion (PDF) out this morning has invalidated the Jones patent.

Of course, ad-supported video is as old as television itself. On the Internet, it's a model used by big players like Hulu, which got sued by Ultramercial and settled. Game network WildTangent also got sued, stuck it out for years, and has now finally won this litigation.

Ultramercial lost at district court, but in 2012 its patent was revived by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears all patent appeals. Former Chief Judge Randall Rader wrote for the court that the Ultramercial patent "does not simply claim the age-old idea that advertising can serve as currency," but rather "discloses a practical application of this idea."

Ordered by the Supreme Court to reconsider that ruling, the Federal Circuit again refused to invalidate the patent under Section 101 grounds, which governs when an idea is too abstract to be patented.

This year, following the Alice v. CLS Bank ruling, the Supreme Court told the Federal Circuit to reconsider the case for the third time. The appeals court has finally taken heed. In this morning's opinion (PDF), a three-judge panel tossed out the ad-watching patent.

Ultramercial argued that even after Alice, ideas should remain patent-eligible as long as they are "new ideas, not previously well known, and not routine activity."

"The process of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad all describe an abstract idea, devoid of concrete or tangible expression," wrote Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.

Throwing in "routine additional steps," like viewing an activity log and restricting public access, doesn't make Ultramercial's ideas patent-eligible either, added Lourie.

Circuit Judge Haldane Mayer wrote a more strongly worded concurring opinion. Throwing out some patents as "abstract" at the outset of a lawsuit is vital to protect the public against frivolous claims, he wrote. "The scourge of meritless infringement claims has continued unabated for decades due, in no small measure, to the ease of asserting such claims and the enormous sums required to defend against them," stated Mayer.

Mayer's concurrence argues that the Alice case "for all intents and purposes set out a technological arts test for eligibility." And, he wrote, when it comes to patent eligibility, "advances in non-technological disciplines—such as business, law, or the social sciences—simply do not count."