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

[News] In Re Bilski to Resume Next Week (Software Patents Potentially at Stake)

  • Subject: [News] In Re Bilski to Resume Next Week (Software Patents Potentially at Stake)
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 07:35:15 +0100
  • Followup-to: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • User-agent: KNode/4.4.2
Hash: SHA1

No Bilski Blockbuster from Supreme Court Today

,----[ Quote ]
| The Supreme Court handed down two 
| relatively low-profile decisions this 
| morning, leaving to another day some of the 
| most-awaited cases of the term like Bilski 
| v. Kappos, the business-methods patent-
| eligibility case that was argued last Nov. 
| 9. The Court won't be in session again 
| until May 17.


Justice Stevens: To Life, To Life, LâChaim


Problems in Re Bilski for SCOTUS

,----[ Quote ]
| The âamicusâ briefs were piled high with 
| supporters of software patents. They were all 
| trying to dodge the issue one way or another. 
| Even Bilski and the opposition both skirted 
| the issue as best they could. The patent 
| office does not want business methods patents 
| but does want software patents (It has issued 
| thousands.). One argument was that adding 
| software to a computer made the computer a 
| specific machine even if it did not transform 
| anything more than bits of information. Has 
| âabstractâ lost its meaning with people? 
| Information, itself, is an abstraction, the 
| idea that we can have an idea about ideasâ



John Paul Stevens, Defender of High-Tech Freedom

,----[ Quote ]
| Patents: The explosion of software patents
| is one of the biggest threats to innovation
| in the software industry, and Justice
| Stevens saw this threat coming almost three
| decades ago. Stevens wrote the majority
| decision in the 1978 case of Parker v.
| Flook, which clearly disallowed patents in
| the software industry. Three years later,
| Stevens dissented in the 1981 case of
| Diamond v. Diehr, which allowed a patent on
| a software-controlled rubber-curing
| machine. Although the majority decision
| didnât explicitly permit patents on
| software, Stevens warned that the
| majorityâs muddled decision would
| effectively open the door to software
| patents. And he has been proven right. In
| the three decades that followed, the
| patent-friendly U.S. Court of Appeals for
| the Federal Circuit has effectively
| dismantled limits on software patents. And
| the result has been a disaster, with high-
| tech firms being forced to spend large sums
| on litigation rather than innovation.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)


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