|
|
|
| Authored by: SLi on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 07:02 AM EDT |
Because the patent office doesn't like the reasoning of the
Supreme Court.
And because even the Federal Circuit (where all
patent cases are litigated)
doesn't like the reasoning of the
Supreme Court.
I think the entire history
of patents in US is PTO and Federal
Circuit interpreting the limitations in a
ridiculously expansive
way and Supreme Court slapping them in turn. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 07:21 AM EDT |
Bilski did not invalidate software patents. It just upheld the lower
courts' rulings that the patent-in-suit was invalid. (See Groklaw's
analysis here.) ---
"When I say something, I put my name next to
it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 08:03 AM EDT |
In Europe software patents were being granted by patent
offices even when they were't enforceable. The reason for
this was that even though they weren't enforceable in most of
Europe at the time, patenting them in Europe was a
requirement for allowing them to be enforced in countries
like the US where they were recognised to be enforceable. To
do otherwise would put European companies at a disadvantage.
Unfortunately this also makes it easier for pro-patent
lobbies to push to make patents on software enforceable in
Europe. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
