Authored by: achurch on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 08:02 AM EDT |
(no text) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 08:59 AM EDT |
IANAL but I don't think they actually can do anything except reverse. They might
use ever stronger language each time and hope someone eventually gets the
message. But the system assumes that people obey their superiors most of the
time.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 11:03 AM EDT |
I may be wrong, but can't the court do one of 3 things in response to
appeal/petition: (a) grant it, hear argument, rule; (b) deny cert, leaving
intact the lower ruling; (c) reverse+remand w/o oral argument or even comment.
I'm pretty sure I've heard of cases where (c) happened.
If the SCOTUS gets angry enough at the CAFC, couldn't they simply let it be
known (however formally or informally) that they are more than willing to
wordlessly reverse+remand just about anything that gets sent to them from CAFC?
My thinking is, once litigators know about that state of affairs, then an appeal
will be automatic, and the CAFC will have to deal with getting all their
decisions thrown right back at them en masse, and with a remand they have a
reconsider and even rehear, so it could make more extra work for CAFC than for
SCOTUS.
Workable?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Advertise reversals? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 12:15 PM EDT
- (d) - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 01:10 PM EDT
- (e) - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 02:18 AM EDT
- (f) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 08:32 AM EDT
|
Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
I think ultimately the Supreme Court will simply issue a flat opinion that
the use of a computer does not under any circumstances render something
patentable subject matter and that any determination must be made independently
of whether a computer is used or not, and then begin reversing rulings and
not remanding (ie. taking the decision out of the hands of the Federal
Circuit entirely), and referring judges to the Bar Association if they continue
to rule against binding precedent. That's, as far as I can tell, the only things
the Supreme Court can do. And I think that if the Federal Circuit continues
their course, that's exactly what's going to end up happening. I'm pretty sure
even the pro-patent Justices will be unhappy about appeals court justices who
openly ignore or reject the Court's rulings. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nuthead on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
Reverse the decision and let Scalia write the opinions. They'd get the point
rather quickly. ;)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 05:00 PM EDT |
This decision clearly respects Bilski. Prometheus is not at issue as there is
not Law of Nature here.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|