-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Director's Forum: David Kappos' Public Blog
http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/
Letters Patent: Bilski Begins
,----[ Quote ]
| Remember, the patent system is supposed to
| encourage innovation of just this kind â
| not to snuff it out.
`----
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2634&blogid=14
In Re Bilski - Transcript of Today's Oral Argument at the US Supreme Court - Updated 3Xs
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091109191422928
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.
`----
http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-software-patents/
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.
`----
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/regulation/2009-11-09-patents09_ST_N.htm
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.
`----
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/11/business-method-patents-technological-change-not-judicial-activism.html
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.
`----
http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/178809.html
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.
`----
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-chaclas-pitney-patent.artoct30,0,5438710.story
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.
`----
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-moglen/an-important-patent-law-p_b_342962.html
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."
`----
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435264768&A_Math_Geeks_Ride_to_the_High_Court_in_Landmark_Patent_Fight
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.
`----
http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/digestTAL.jsp?id=1202435239067
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.
`----
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1108/p02s13-usju.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkr7GAgACgkQU4xAY3RXLo55aQCdE0i1jl7hRADvfN/MycsI3XgL
q6QAmgMqW9xKGq4u7+HS5bBR0k4Vm5+1
=/QYN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
