|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 09:07 PM EST |
Alright fine, PJ, since we're being serious.
Please outline any standing case that you feel would be an appropriate vehicle
for forcing the issue into the courts. It needs to be one that rather expressly
says that "no software is patentable", since that's what you're asking
the USPTO to use as the basis for rejecting patents.
I make no bones that I think that even finding a case that could be used is
impossible. I see nothing in case law that even comes close to supporting what
you're asking for. But I've been wrong in the past. Go ahead and convince me.
While you're at it, please also explain why you feel that the Supreme Court
would address this differently than in Bilski, in which it had the opportunity
to flat out say that software isn't patentable as part of its ruling on the
machine-or-transformation test, but declined. The Supreme Court is by no means
bound to only adhere to narrow tailorings in matters before it, and has issued
broad rulings on many occasions previously, yet it somehow keeps passing on this
opportunity. So even if the USPTO did exactly as you wished, what would be
different this time in the courts, and why?
Again, no one is saying the USPTO has no "muscle". But it is
administrative muscle, not one associative with the judicial branch. Indeed,
that was my whole point.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Oh please... - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 11:39 PM EST
|
|
|
|
