Comments

• Jose_X

  2010-06-28 21:35:37

  groklaw and techdirt have coverage as well.
  
  Best I can say is that the wheels of justice grind very slowly and we are still far away from a true victory, but (as PJ concluded) today it seems we took another small step in that direction.
  
  [She wrote a nice (long) piece on Susan B Anthony's trial a few weeks back. It's about how eventually justice will be served and we should be patient. It's worth a read.]
  
  The Court reaffirmed that software is abstract and you can't simply tie a machine to software to claim a patent. Also, they recognize that in the modern era of information, patents can lead to problems in some areas in stifling individuals, especially amid independent inventions.
  
  This last part is very important. As stated on this site numerous times, we should avoid purposely implementing software that is known to be patented by hostile entities (eg, dotnet API) since the SCOTUS might rule one day that numerous software patents might be infringed if the infringer was copying the invention directly but not otherwise (ie, create a criteria for safe harbor based on "independence").
  
  Bilski itself got annihilated, so that sends a strong message to patents that try to pull off the trick Bilski did. It's not enough to call your patent a "process".
  
  Also, the Court made it a point to say they were not endorsing State Street (as Microsoft had wanted):
  
  >> And nothing in today’s opinion should be read as endorsing interpretations of €§101 that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has used in the past. See, e.g., State Street, 149 F. 3d, at 1373; AT&T Corp., 172 F. 3d, at 1357.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2010-06-28 22:00:24

  Thanks for the encouraging roundup. I'm still drowning in Bilski articles. I'll try to post a summary before I fall asleep.