|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
In a Supreme Court argument, one could point out that in the software industry,
it is now considered best practice to not read the patents, because of treble
liability. (It would be very easy to thoroughly demonstrate that this is
considered best practice.) But that means that software patents are totally
failing their constitutional mandate, of teaching how to practice the
invention.
(They're also failing because they're unreadable to one ordinarily skilled in
the art, but that's a separate argument.)
MSS2[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 06:04 PM EDT |
There are two parts to eliminating software patents:
1) Halting the issue of new software patents, and
2) Invalidating existing software patents.
Congress could take care of the first, but if congress invalidated existing
software patents it might be interpreted as a taking requiring compensation to
the holders of those patents. If congress halts the issue of new software
patents, time will solve the problem of existing software patents.
If existing patents can be eliminated other than by congress or waiting for them
to expire, then that should also serve to halt the issue of new software patents
removing the need for congressional action.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
