|
A report on Microsoft v. AT&T Supreme Court Hearing |
|
Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 03:48 PM EST
|
A Groklaw reader attended the hearing at the Supreme Court regarding Microsoft v. AT&T patent case and was so nice to send us a report of the hearing. Enjoy -- Mathfox
**********
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Microsoft v.
AT&T. This is a patent case in which Microsoft has raised two questions
in an appeal from a decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals cited an earlier decision in Eolas
v. Microsoft in finding that "[w]ithout question, software code
alone qualfies as an invention eligible for patenting." (page 3)
Neither Microsoft nor AT&T has directly challenged this finding,
although it is probably implicit in the first of the two questions
presented:
(1) Whether digital software code--an intangible sequence of
"1's" and "0's"--may be considered a "component[] of a patented
invention" within the meaning of Section 271(f)(1).
As the Software Freedom Law Center has argued in its brief amicus
curiae, this finding of "software patentability" would appear to
be in conflict with earlier Supreme Court decisions, leading to the
possibility that the court might address this matter--potentially
leading to the elimination of software patents. Other briefs available
on line are Microsoft,
AT&T,
and the Solicitor
General.
I attended this morning's hearing to find out if the question of
"software patentability" would be address in the arguments, or more
importantly, in the questions from the justices. Chief Justice Roberts
opened the session at 10:00am. He introduced guests from the EU, and
presided while two opinions were read and over the admission of several
lawyers to the Supreme Court Bar. He then left the chamber and Justice
Stevens presided over the oral arguments in Microsoft v. AT&T. Ted
Olson, former Solicitor General, argued for Microsoft for about 16
minutes, Daryl Joseffer, assistant to the Solicitor General argued for
10 minutes, supporting Microsoft. Seth Waxman argued for AT&T for 30
minutes and then Ted Olson used the remaining 4 minutes to close. The
Justices asked many questions, sometimes rather pointed, and usually on
point--I think they understand at least some of the issues. The
transcript of the arguments is now available here
I believe Justice Breyer first raised the question of software patents,
and pointed out that the Supreme Court has never agreed that that
software can be patented (page 22, line 6)--as FSF pointed out in its
brief. The issue came up several more times. What I found most
interesting was that both the Mr. Joseffer (page 27, line 17) and Mr.
Waxman (page 29, line 10 and page 38, line 25) said that software is not
patentable. By directly contradicting the Court of Appeals on the this
matter, I wonder if AT&T hasn't seriously undermined its case.
Attending a Supreme Court hearing is an interesting experience,
particularly if you have read the questions presented and the merits
briefs and understand the issues. If you want to assured of getting in,
get there early and be prepared to wait in line--outdoors, rain or
shine--for 2 or 3 hours. I found the Visitor's
Guide to be quite helpful.
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 04:10 PM EST |
IANAL, but to me it seems like a lose-lose for Microsoft here. If the Court
declares software patentable, AT&T wins their argument on that point. If the
Court declares software not patentable, Microsoft wins their case but software
patents in the US go *poof*. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Simon G Best on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 04:20 PM EST |
Corrections here, if there need be any.
--- "Public relations" is a
public relations term for propaganda. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Micriosoft --> Microsoft - Authored by: OmniGeek on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 04:23 PM EST
- would be address -> would be addressed - Authored by: Trollsfire on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 04:31 PM EST
- "If you want to assured" -> "If you want to be assured " (n/t) - Authored by: myNym on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 05:01 PM EST
- that that - Authored by: dmarker on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 06:07 PM EST
- that that - Authored by: myNym on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 06:17 PM EST
- Yes, - Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 08:22 AM EST
- "He left the chamber" - Authored by: stend on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 06:42 PM EST
- FSF -> SFLC - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 08:58 PM EST
- Waxman is also a former Solicitor General - Authored by: Steve on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 12:38 AM EST
- qualfies - Authored by: The Cornishman on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 04:35 AM EST
- Delete definite article - Authored by: The Cornishman on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 04:41 AM EST
|
Authored by: Simon G Best on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 04:22 PM EST |
Off-topic stuff here, please. Links, and don't forget to preview comments,
etc.
--- "Public relations" is a public relations term for propaganda. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- For UK Citizens: Don't Forget to Sign the ODF Petition! - Authored by: Simon G Best on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 04:29 PM EST
- Dell offering Linux on desktops (just my thoughts) - Authored by: MDT on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 05:13 PM EST
- I'd have no real problem - Authored by: NetArch on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 06:21 PM EST
- Dell offering Linux on desktops (just my thoughts) - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 06:30 PM EST
- Dell offering Linux on desktops (just my thoughts) - Authored by: os on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 07:16 PM EST
- Maybe a price deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 09:06 PM EST
- Maybe a value deal - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 02:37 AM EST
- Dell offering Linux on desktops (just my thoughts) - Authored by: eskild on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 04:04 AM EST
- Dell offering Linux on desktops (just my thoughts) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 05:20 AM EST
- Dell offering Linux on desktops (just my thoughts) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 06:16 AM EST
- Cheaper - I hope not. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 06:52 AM EST
- Dell offering Linux on desktops (second thoughts) - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 08:40 AM EST
- News Picks: Ballmer impugns the character of the free/open source world - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 05:22 PM EST
- "Microsoft Ships Updated Licensing Tools" - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 07:30 PM EST
- We need PJ - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 09:07 PM EST
- TheStreet.com: "Microsoft Gives Up the Grail " - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 10:59 PM EST
- Visual Basic on Gnu/Linux OR Just use Gambas - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 11:07 PM EST
- "MS dirty tricks archive trickles back to life" - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 11:50 PM EST
- "OpenOffice.org...celebrates International Mother Language Day" - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 12:27 AM EST
- "Google goes after Microsoft with software suite" - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 01:06 AM EST
- Philips Brief - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 01:18 AM EST
- Loosing the Plot... or Which Planet are they on? - Authored by: stephen_A on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 04:50 AM EST
- Another OLD Microsoft Windows Security Fiasco More Credit Card data loss - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 07:09 AM EST
- OT: M.O'G - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 08:12 AM EST
- The link - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 08:38 AM EST
- Sidebar - Apple Users Petition Prime Minister - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 08:16 AM EST
- Off-Topic - Texas Bill for Open Document Now Available - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 09:37 AM EST
- MIT Course Material "Open Sourced" - Authored by: NetArch on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 09:57 AM EST
- Apple, Cisco settle over iPhone - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 12:26 PM EST
|
Authored by: Griffin3 on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 04:30 PM EST |
h/t to SCOTUSblog, who had a preview of the arguments, and already has the link to the transcript available. Who'd 've thought the legal world would be so
in-touch with the Internet?
I haven't read 'em yet, so ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- On-Topic: More hearing dirt - Authored by: Aim Here on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 05:27 PM EST
- On-Topic: More hearing dirt - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 06:16 PM EST
- Some notes - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 07:30 AM EST
- Some notes - Authored by: RFD on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 09:24 AM EST
- Some notes - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 11:27 AM EST
- Some notes - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 09:46 AM EST
- Some notes - Authored by: philc on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 09:54 AM EST
- Some notes - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 11:25 AM EST
- Some notes - Authored by: tinkerghost on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 11:34 AM EST
- Some notes - Authored by: vadim on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 10:42 AM EST
- Some notes - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 01:03 PM EST
|
Authored by: myNym on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 04:38 PM EST |
... and then expecting royalties from anyone who happens to come up with the
correct answer.
(Similarly with regards to "business method" patents, such as the
recently discussed tax strategy patent...)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 04:44 PM EST |
What I found most interesting was that both the Mr. Joseffer (page
27, line 17) and Mr. Waxman (page 29, line 10 and page 38, line 25) said that
software is not patentable. By directly contradicting the Court of Appeals on
the this matter, I wonder if AT&T hasn't seriously undermined its
case.
I wonder if AT&T secretly hopes to nuke software patents
with this case. The way I read this brief summary of the case there are three
main options for the supremes.
- Software patents should not exist.
-
Software patents should exist but you are allowed to bypass them by printing
your CDs full of patented software outside the country.
- Software patents
should exist and US patent law applies to printing CDs full of patented software
outside the country. Then by the same logic other countries patent law would
apply in the US as well.
Whatever it is, software patents are either nuked,
crippled or compliance is made ludicrously complex. I wonder what AT&T
expects to achieve by forcing the Supremes to make such a choice. IANAL and I
don't think I really understand what is going on. Anyone care to bring some
sanity I may have missed here?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oups got my answer - Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 04:49 PM EST
- A report on Microsoft v. AT&T Supreme Court Hearing - Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 04:52 PM EST
- A report on Microsoft v. AT&T Supreme Court Hearing - Authored by: John Hasler on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 05:44 PM EST
- A report on Microsoft v. AT&T Supreme Court Hearing - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 06:07 PM EST
- I don't think so - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 08:27 PM EST
- I don't think so - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 08:34 PM EST
- I don't think so - Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 09:15 PM EST
- It was NTP that did the attack on RIM (nt) - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 11:55 PM EST
- I don't think so - Authored by: nuthead on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 01:02 AM EST
- I don't think so - Authored by: jimbudler on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 01:12 AM EST
- I don't think so - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 06:53 AM EST
- I don't think so - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 07:48 PM EST
- I don't think so - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 04:35 AM EST
- I don't think so - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 07:34 AM EST
- SC is NOT just part of DoJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 07:56 AM EST
- A report on Microsoft v. AT&T Supreme Court Hearing - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 05:35 PM EST
|
Authored by: rm6990 on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 05:30 PM EST |
Ummm....wasn't the whole point of this hearing about whether or not Microsoft
can be held liable for damages resulting from their overseas distribution that
AT&T alleges infringe on patents they hold in the United States? I see
nothing mentioned on this front in the summary....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: myNym on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 06:02 PM EST |
What then? Seems that in this global economy, it's pretty hard to determine
where a finished product will end up.
What if the Russian teacher's computers were assembled in a country that had no
copyright law? Or a country that celebrated piracy? Who then broke the law?
The importer?
How is anyone to determine the status of the laws in all the jurisdictions
through which an assembled device may have passed?
(No answers, just questions...)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 06:21 PM EST |
In some ways this appears to be Microsoft v. Microsoft as it relates to software
patents. If software becomes not patentable, the Microsoft that does not like
being sued wins, but the Microsoft that likes to threaten FOSS loses.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 07:24 PM EST |
This transcript is one of the most difficult things to read and follow as I have
ever read.
In terms of patents in general, I have some questions:
Lets say there is a patent for a shovel in the shape of a tee. It looks like a
standard shovel, but it has a crossbar on the end of the shovel.
Now, when am I breaking the law (assume this is all US with a US patent):
If I build a shovel with a crossbar as described in the patent?
If I buy a shovel and add a crossbar?
If I build a crossbar and a shovel separately and sell them with instructions to
place the crossbar on the shovel?
If I build a crossbar and sell the crossbar with instructions and the user
provides their own shovel?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Scenarios - Authored by: RFD on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 08:10 PM EST
- Scenarios - Authored by: FamilyManFirst on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 08:25 PM EST
- Scenarios - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 08:40 PM EST
- Scenarios - Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 01:36 PM EST
- Personal use? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 23 2007 @ 06:13 PM EST
- Scenarios - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 12:51 PM EST
- Scenarios - Authored by: TJ on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 10:02 PM EST
- Reverse that Scenario - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 11:23 PM EST
|
Authored by: Latesigner on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 07:36 PM EST |
Thank you whoever you are!
This was something I was really curious about.
---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 08:06 PM EST |
JUSTICE SCALIA: You can't patent, you know, on-off, on-off code in
the abstract, can you?
MR. OLSON: That's correct, Justice
Scalia.
JUSTICE SCALIA: There needs to be a device.
MR. OLSON: An idea
or a principle, two plus two equals four can't be patented. It has to be put
together with a machine and made into a usable device. The bind that AT&T is
in here is that the components that make the machines run that are produced
abroad are not supplied from the United States. They are made in Belgium or
Frankfurt or something.
I believe that argument will come back
to haunt Microsoft.
Trying to argue that it's not an illegal copy because
you
put it on a harddrive made outside of the U.S. is
just not going to
fly.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Bonding with a machine - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 08:35 PM EST
- Bonding with a machine - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 12:36 AM EST
- Both are IP - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 04:28 AM EST
- Both are IP - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 07:41 AM EST
- Bonding with a machine - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 01:03 PM EST
|
Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 08:33 PM EST |
ISTM that since some time around the mid-nineties it is easy to find linkage
and some common cause between Microsoft and AT&T.
Therefore, maybe this
apparent fight in the Supreme Court is desired by both sides, the Courts
and the Government.
Fears over reach of US patent law
Several
justices of the US Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed concern about the risks
of extending the reach of US patent law to other countries, as they struggled to
find a way to bring the law into the digital age.....could have big implications
for new technology industries such as software and biotechnology.... "We
need a global patent system, and that requires each country to have a healthy
respect for its borders," said Brad Smith, general counsel of Microsoft.
However, Seth Waxman, AT&T's attorney, said that in a digital world, where
borders are increasingly porous, Microsoft's overseas shipments effectively
stripped AT&T's patent of all value....An attorney for the Bush
administration told the court such a result would anger foreign governments,
whose own patent laws should apply on their territory.... Finacial Times
They all realise
the question must be answered BEFORE any change to the US software patent
system.
Sentiment is all with the Microsoft cause. I do believe that they will
win, but having prevented US patent law from impacting the rest of the world,
the system has total freedom to do whatever within US borders.
Is that good
or is that bad?
Brian S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 21 2007 @ 11:52 PM EST |
Even though I believe that any kind of patents is a detriment to progress and
software patents are just the most egregious in that respect, as long as the
patent law exists, ATT has a point.
Note, that the patent in question is
not a software
patent. ATT's patent is patent for a better telephone.
It turns out that that
patent can be practiced by combining Windows OS, and a
Windows program
with some hardware to make a telephone.
You cannot make
such a telephone in the US even for export. You cannot
circumvent that
restiction by manufacturing parts in the US and shipping
them for assembly
abroad. What is important here is where the substantial
manufacturing steps
leading to a product covered by the patent take place.
In the case at hand,
the invention is unquestionably practiced in the US. Most
of the effort
leading to the final product goes into writing the source code for
the software
component and this is done in Redmond, WA. The remainder of
the manufacturing
process is trivial compared to this.
From the economic perspective
Microsoft is selling telephones covered by
ATT patent in Germany while spending
99% of manufacturing cost in the US.
(The only difference with the shipping
parts for assembly case is that the bulk
of per-unit cost is ammortization of
the development effort.) Moreover, the
patented idea enables code writing, the
manufacturing step that happens on
the US soil. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- ATT has a point - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 12:40 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 02:03 AM EST |
This an answer I'll be waiting for.
I'm not smart enough to say what my concerns are in a short amount of space
with the likely hood that I will be understood. But I will try:
I am worried if I would be able to use a computer to do
everything I would expect it to do when I bought it in 1991.
I had a sound blaster sound card installed. (I did not own the compute in 1989
when the first sound blaster came out).
As I am wondering if as I read the brief. if all that is needed is a computer
with 'some' software, with a microphone and speaker. (Every general purpose
computer now fits this description) to infringe a 'patent'.
Now if I install a compiler on the computer with a set of development tools. (If
what software I have installed on my computer is the difference between
infringing and not infringing). How am I to 'know' when that line is crossed if
I start developing software.
Suppose someone tells me about an idea (or someone says something which gives me
an Idea or someone tells me what is in a patent application without telling me
it is from an issued patent). I code it up, debug it and get it to work. How do
I know I can use it. If I can not, there seems something very unfair about this.
Contray to what is said in the brief. There is a technology which would have the
same 'problems' as computers with regard to 'information' That is the tape to a
player piano. The tape has the information of the song encoded on it when placed
in a player piano will cause the song to be played. Someone sueing for copywrite
infringement would have the same problem with someone exporting the tape. But
that means AT&T would have to have a copywrite not a patent.
(The stipulation in this case while appearing to simplify the case maybe just
confining the terms of the legal question these companies want answered.What is
strange is it quotes from EOLS which had its patent re-examined and as I
understand it lost as a president)
There is nothing that prevents someone from making a machine that when you
insert cd and attach a hardrive in a usb-inclosure will automaticly copy the cd
to the hard-drive. That is not even a hard thing to do from a programming
perspective. The software on the 'cd' seems very much like the player piano
example above.
The tape (or what is encoded on the tape) is an essential part to causing
infringement.
There is a real problem here that I do not know (what the 'law' would consider
to be the answer) the answer too yet. I owned a computer with a speaker in 1991
with a mic. 1991+20 = 2011. (but really the time line would be 1989+20 =2009
(for patent expiration). --Sound baster made their first card in 1989. However I
played with mic and speaker connected to a computer before 1981. So that puts
the date at 2001 in the past).
(The abstract problem is: Am I only not infringing if I do not have a certain
order of bits stored in my computer when I turn the computer on).
Am I safe from all 'patents that involve a computer, a speaker and microphone or
not?
I'm not going into details here but many possible set of rules from the court
lead to what I would consider nonsensical results or worse imposable results. (I
do not believe I am streaching words here). If I want to follow the law, I care
how the supreme court rules, but what happens if in order to follow the rules, I
have to go broke trying and still can not follow the rules? That seems very
unfair.
Like I said, I am not smart enough to say what I want to say in a few words.
a florida resident.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 03:15 AM EST |
Okay, it's really late - and I'm in-between sleep here - but didn't Steve
Ballamer (MS) _JUST_ accuse (No, declare) Linux violates MS patents?...(again)
And it seems here MS is arguing that software is not patentable?
Wouldn't something be in conflict there? If MS is arguing to the courts that
software patents are not valid -- yet then publicly claiming Linux violates MS
IP (patents) -- would that not at the VERY least be defamation?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 06:37 AM EST |
and it always could use some more downloads I'd guess :-)
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3620152/iowa
It is more complete than Grouch's mirror, too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 09:22 AM EST |
Apparently, Microsoft has stated that "An idea or a principle [such as] two
plus two equals four can't be patented".
(http://www.betanews.com/article/Supreme_Court_Debates_Patentability_of_Software
/117209739)
Aren't they saying that software can't be patented? Oh how I miss PJ to
elaborate on such comments.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 10:48 AM EST |
I don't think so, since AT&T's lawyer has stated that software by itself
cannot be patented, and all MS distributed was software. It was the customers in
the foreign countries that combined the software with a physical device to make
an instance of the patented item, which was not patented in that foreign
country.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stites on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 01:50 PM EST |
"(1) Whether digital software code--an intangible sequence of "1's" and
"0's"--may be considered a "component[] of a patented invention" within the
meaning of Section 271(f)(1)."
Microsoft raised the contention that
software is not a part in order to cut off AT&T's argument at its base. The
original court decision allowing software to be patented was based on the logic
that the software in question was an integral part of a computerized control
device and was patententable as part of that device. Microsoft is arguing that
their software is not part of a device and therefore is not patentable. Thus we
get the following oral argument where Mr. Joseffer says that stand alone
software is not patentable.
- "JUSTICE STEVENS: Your time is
up, but I want to ask you one yes or no question. In your view is software
patentable?
- MR. JOSEFFER: Standing alone in and of itself, no.
...
- MR. WAXMAN [For AT&T]: The code is not
patentable."
The really wierd thing is AT&T saying
the code is not patentable. By saying that AT&T is destroying their entire
case by saying that their software patent is not legal.
On the face of
this snippet of oral argument it appears that both sides to this lawsuit agree
that software is not patentable. The Supreme Court could quite possibly declare
software is not patentable, although the ruling might apply only to software
which is not a part in a physical device (which probably includes all software
because I don't think that there is such a thing as software which is part of a
physical device).
"As the Software Freedom Law Center has argued in
its brief amicus curiae, this finding of "software patentability" would appear
to be in conflict with earlier Supreme Court decisions, leading to the
possibility that the court might address this matter--potentially leading to the
elimination of software patents. "
The Supreme Court does not
necessarily have to pay any attention to amicus curiae briefs. The fact that
both Microsoft and AT&T are arguing that some or all software is not
patentable means that the Supreme Court is more likely to take the Software
Freedom Law Center amicus curiae brief into
consideration.
-----------------------
Steve Stites
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 06:46 PM EST |
JUSTICE STEVENS: But do you -- what is your view on whether or not software
is a component?
This is the heart of why software patents exist in
the first place. It comes from the misunderstanding of what software actually
is.
Software is not a component, it is actually a set of instructions
that a component follows. The instructions are contained in a component - a disk
- a tape, and they are needed for proper functioning of that component, but they
in themselves are not a component. They cannot perform any functions by
themselves.
Someone needed to explain "software" and "components" using
the analogy of a book and written works.
The story of "Oliver's Travels"
is a series of events that the reader follows.
The "reader" is a
computer.
The written story of "Oliver's Travels" is software.
The book
the story "Oliver's Travels" was written on is the storage
component.
The book is covered by Patents.
The story is
covered by Copyright.
so
The storage component is covered by
Patents.
The software is covered by copyright
In the same way
that "Oliver's Travels" can be written in German, Itallian, or English, software
can be written in source, x86 machine, or 68000 machine code.
Someone
needed to say this - and make this analogy to the Justices ......
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ansak on Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 08:06 PM EST |
Well... it looks like the court has upheld some
level of software patents. Microsoft may eventually be $1.5B poorer but I
can see saliva dripping at all the further OpenSource patent-infringement FUD
yet to come. :(
cheers...ank [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 23 2007 @ 12:30 PM EST |
Here's another possibility - And one i have seen used in the software industry
before -
Maybe Microsoft set this up so they could lose the case and thus strengthen the
idea of software patents. They now have a precedent that they could use against
someone else. The normal way is to find a stuge you can sue for infringement and
have them lose their case and your company absorbs them and uses the precedent
to block everyone else.
Did Microsoft lose this one on purpose?
P. Cook[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RFD on Friday, February 23 2007 @ 01:36 PM EST |
The Washington Post had an article yesterday on this case that I thought was unusually
good. --- Eschew obfuscation assiduously. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|