“If thought can corrupt language, then language can also corrupt thought.”
[T]he term “intellectual privilege” seems to work. It’s got the right initial letters, which is a huge win! But it also correctly describes the actual nature of the temporary rights we’re considering.
The use of words like “property” encourages the use of words like “stealing” and “theft”, even “piracy”.
With the CAFC’s decision on Bilski being appealed to the Supreme Court, it’s worth thinking about how the Supreme Court might actually view the question of software and business model patents. While patent system defenders go through all sorts of twists and turns to explain why software should be patentable, Tim Lee has a detailed explanation of why software should not be patentable, based on earlier Supreme Court precedent.
Here is the beef of the argument:
Ctrl-Z: a return to the Supreme Court’s software patent ban?
With the USPTO and courts cracking down on software patents, Ars looks closely at the Supreme Court’s software patent decisions. Yes, the Supremes really did say that algorithms can’t be patented. In spite of the fact that their rulings have been functionally ignored for almost 20 years, the tide may be about to turn.