Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Director of Monopoly Office (USPTO) Starts Blogging, Bilski Begins

  • Subject: [News] Director of Monopoly Office (USPTO) Starts Blogging, Bilski Begins
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:01:11 +0000
  • Followup-to: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • User-agent: KNode/4.3.1
Hash: SHA1

Director's Forum: David Kappos' Public Blog


Letters Patent: Bilski Begins

,----[ Quote ]
| Remember, the patent system is supposed to 
| encourage innovation of just this kind â 
| not to snuff it out.


In Re Bilski - Transcript of Today's Oral Argument at the US Supreme Court - Updated 3Xs


Bilskiâs hearing and software patents

,----[ Quote ]
| At Mondayâs hearing (court transcript), 
| neither party had the objective of 
| abolishing software patents. The Bilski 
| case is about a business method patent, so 
| there was Mr. Jakes arguing that business 
| methods should be patentable, and Mr. 
| Stewart arguing that they shouldnât. For 
| software to be excluded, weâre relying on 
| the judges (to whom we wrote an amicus 
| brief, as did many others). Thereâre a few 
| worrying statements, but thereâs also a lot 
| of hope.
| On the issue of business methods, the 
| judges were very sceptical but mentioned 
| many times that they donât see an obvious 
| place to draw the line. Indeed, they seemed 
| to find Jakesâ position comical at times, 
| and also found Stewart not going far enough 
| and said that with his proposed 
| interpretation, a computer could be added 
| to any idea to make a patentable âmachineâ, 
| thus also failing to exclude business 
| method patents. There are also some 
| worrying statements in there, like Justice 
| Sotomayor calling the 2008 CAFC in re 
| Bilski ruling âextremeâ.


Software patent case arrives at Supreme Court

,----[ Quote ]
| With the tech industry looking on, the 
| Supreme Court today will explore what types 
| of inventions should be eligible for a 
| patent in a pivotal case that could 
| undermine such legal protections for 
| software.


Business Method Patents: Technological Change, Not Judicial Activism

,----[ Quote ]
| The judicial activism thesis may have a 
| superficial appeal. State Street was a 
| highly visible and prominent pronouncement 
| by the federal court having nationwide 
| jurisdiction over patent cases. It may seem 
| reasonable to attribute tremendous 
| implications to such a famous judicial 
| opinion. Yet the judicial activism thesis 
| suffers from multiple glaring problems and 
| plainly cannot account for the timing of 
| the rise in business method patenting, 
| which plainly began well before State 
| Street.  


Patent law must not stifle innovation

,----[ Quote ]
| In a world of constantly accelerating 
| technological change, economic prosperity 
| depends on innovation. To support such 
| innovation, it is vital that our patent 
| system be well-calibrated, so that overly 
| broad patent monopolies do not choke 
| innovation. In the last several years, 
| patent standards have been relaxed by the 
| courts, which has created a patent system 
| that hinders innovation in the software 
| industry.
| [...]
| Such lawsuits can be ruinously expensive - 
| including, for an average-size case, 
| millions of dollars in attorneys' fees. 
| Large software companies have developed 
| defenses against some patent threats, 
| including obtaining their own patents that 
| they may use to bring countersuits if 
| attacked. This strategy is only available 
| to well-financed companies. Even large 
| companies face increased litigation risks 
| from businesses with no purpose other than 
| exploiting patents. These businesses - 
| called non-practicing entities, or, less 
| politely, patent trolls - buy patents not 
| with a view of producing products, but 
| rather so that they can demand ransom from 
| operating companies.


High Court Must Lower Bar For Patents

,----[ Quote ]
| Due to an important federal circuit court 
| of appeals decision last year, this type of 
| powerful innovation may no longer be 
| patentable. In upholding a lower court 
| ruling, the federal circuit wrote that a 
| business process (like online banking) must 
| be "tied to a machine" or transform "a 
| substance into a different state or thing" 
| in order to qualify for patent protection. 
| This "machine or transformation" test, as 
| it is called, is too rigid to incite 
| innovation.


An Important Patent Law Precedent Approaches

,----[ Quote ]
| So now, shorn of all the technicalities, 
| the Supreme Court gets a chance to say 
| whether it means what it's always said, or 
| whether it wants to endorse the fast and 
| flashy round-heeled patent system we were 
| running during the boom times. Of course, 
| it can always do nothing at all, or make a 
| new alternative that wasn't there before; 
| that's what being the Supreme Court means, 
| as any Legal Realist will tell you. But one 
| thing is certain, that if they wind up 
| saying anything at all, what the Justices 
| say in this case will determine the course 
| of patent law for a long time to come.


A Math Geek's Ride to the High Court in Landmark Patent Fight

,----[ Quote ]
| The company is marketing the product even 
| without the patent, so Warsaw was asked: 
| Why keep fighting for it? "Our revenues are 
| down millions of dollars because we don't 
| have the patent" and the royalty stream 
| that would have resulted, he said. "We have 
| no market power. That's the essence of it. 
| You can't protect your interests."


Bilski Supreme Court Preview: Finnegan Lawyer Challenging 'Machine or
Transformation' Patent Test Says He's Ready

,----[ Quote ]
| The appellate court ruled that in order for 
| a business method to receive patent 
| protection, it would need to either 
| "transform [an] article to a different 
| state or thing," or be "tied to a 
| particular machine." The opinion sent the 
| patent bar into an uproar, with businesses 
| asserting that the new standard jeopardized 
| patents on all kinds of highly valuable 
| intellectual property, including software.


Supreme Court to decide: What kind of innovations get a patent?

,----[ Quote ]
| At issue is whether US patent protection 
| must be limited to inventions involving 
| machines and transformative processes, or 
| whether patent law also embraces 
| nonphysical inventions like improved 
| business methods and software innovations.
| The case, Bilski v. Kappos, is viewed as a 
| potential landmark in patent law. It has 
| attracted 67 friend-of-the-court briefs 
| from lawyers, scholars, and businesses, 
| including Microsoft, the Biotechnology 
| Industry Organization, Bank of America, 
| Google, Yahoo, and L.L. Bean. 

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index