|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 03:55 PM EST |
Recall.
1) The dispute is framed as an issue of privatization of human understanding.
2) There is an unresolved question of how to distinguish a patent ineligible
abstract idea in a computer implemented invention before the Federal Circuit
right now.
Your view that the courts will not tackle the issue is disputable at best.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 03:58 PM EST |
United States Federal Courts have issued rulings on
patentability of certain categories of subject matter.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- And yet somehow - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 08:40 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 04:41 AM EST |
I have never seen explicit permission from the USPTO. They have issued many
guidelines over the years and I have seen no such permission. The various
Congressional committees have said that software patents would be a bad thing.
You must provide citations if you are going to assert that.
You also state that 'Courts aren't going to decide public policy questions where
there is no Constitutional questions at stake. They've explicitly said as much
regarding
patents'.
The Supreme Court has, several times, stated that they will never decide policy:
that is for government (see Microsoft v. AT&T and Bilski). The courts are
there to apply the word of the law to the facts.
PolR, in a series of articles, has presented facts (together with legal and
scientific citations) about computers and software that none of the courts have
taken into consideration when applying the word of the law. It is up to us to
spread the awareness of the facts. The courts will thank us for that.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
