From Wol:
Bear in mind there is no res judicata precedent that says
installing code on a
computer creates an infringing device ...
That fact was
*stipulated* in the MS/ATT case and, as such, is not binding
despite being part
of the SCOTUS ruling.
From Ian Al:
That is not what
Microsoft stipulated to
They stipulated that they infringed on the patent by
having Windows Media Player installed in a computer.
And where is
the difference? SCOTUS just reached the logical conclusion from the stipulation
given that a software patent doesn't cover code, not even in executable form.
They didn't want to rule that the code infringe but there must have been some
infringement somewhere given the stipulation. What could they have ruled then?
The ruling is that IF the stipulation is correct THEN this is how the law should
be interpreted.
The notion that installing software on a computer makes a
new patentable machine is a creation of the Federal Circuit. This fictional
computer science has never been escalated to the Supreme Court. The precedents
are from the Federal Circuit, not the Supreme Court. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
