decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
'Cos that's where the $$$$$$ are | 287 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Re: Why do the amici briefs focus so much on business models?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 08:31 AM EDT
If I understand you correctly, a court decision can take possible harmful
effects into account, if two (or more) interprations of the law are reasonable.
But this should only be the case, if there are no precedents or the intent of
the law isn't obvious.
So why not concentrate on these to preclude interpretations supporting the other
side?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

'Cos that's where the $$$$$$ are
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 10:14 AM EDT
Either in or out of the 'pocket' depending on status as victim or perpetrator
i.e viewpoint.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

To put another way: Societal Impact
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 12:07 PM EDT

When it gets to the Supremes, even if the earlier Courts ignore the impact to Society:

    The Supremes recognize there is a balancing between the "allow monopoly" Laws and the harm to Society!
"Allow monopoly" equating to "Copyright, Patent and Trademark" Laws.

I believe that consideration is a huge part of why the Supremes have made it clear that Patent Laws do not extend to such things as Laws of Nature and Abstract Concepts.

I believe it's why there's an exception to Copyrightability of works in the form of Fair Use.

It's also likely to have originally been considered by the Drafters Of The Constitution which is why:

    Patent applies (or is supposed to) to a specific physical implementation of an idea
while
    Copyright applies (or is supposed to) to a specific authored expression of an idea

If the Societal impact is never spoken of - it'll less likely be considered.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )