Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   J.R., Jun 22nd, 2006 @ 2:26pm

   
   

   The Supreme Court shows once again that it doesn't always grasp the true gravity of a case... I sometimes wonder about this particular Court.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Joe Smith, Jun 22nd, 2006 @ 2:47pm

   
   

   Read the dissent

   The dissenting opinion seems to have a very clear understanding of the stakes and talks about the possibility of patents creating obstacles to innovation and the problem of transaction costs.
   
   The majority has apparently not said why they decided to not decide the case. It may be that the record (body of evidence) in the case did not provide an appropriate basis for deciding the underlying patent law issue.
   
   There is something profoundly screwy about the underlying decision at the trial and appeal and that may be part of the reason that SCOTUS decided to abandon the case.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jun 22nd, 2006 @ 2:48pm

   
   

   Must of been a tie on who threw the most money there way

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   william williams, Jun 22nd, 2006 @ 2:50pm

   
   

   the cure

   Imagine going to the doctor and being told I'm sorry I can't treat you this other company has a patent on the treatment that would cure you. You'll have to go to them.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   I, for one, Jun 22nd, 2006 @ 3:13pm

   
   

   seems familiar

   We're seeing rather a lot of this. EFF v AT&T and LabCorp v Metabolite are just the latest cases where the courts and judges are buckling on very important high profile decisions. They are either: i) Properly on the side of popular justice and waiting for a 100% decisive victory rather than risking a loss on a technicality. ii) Procrastinating under political pressure. In which case there is no longer any basis for confidence in the courts.
   
   @#3
   Must of been a tie on who threw the most money their way. [ /spelling nazi]

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   satan, Jun 22nd, 2006 @ 3:22pm

   
   

   Re:

   that's my thinking too

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   JM, Jun 22nd, 2006 @ 3:32pm

   
   

   Re:

   Well look at the judges who make it up for Christ's sake!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jun 22nd, 2006 @ 4:13pm

   
   

   corporatism

   it is corporatism at its best
   
   sounds like a decision a ceo or manager would make in a corporation
   
   just pass the buck and don't decide anything
   
   I am sad for our country - it ran by nothing but middle managers.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jun 22nd, 2006 @ 4:58pm

   
   

   Chief Justice Roberts has said that he is avoiding most devisive issues this session in order to build a consistent viewpoint across the court and bring some predictability to a previously unpredictable court. He has avoided taking important cases in a number of disciplines with the intent of tackling more important cases next session. Its important for him to build a good foundation within the court prior to moving forward to abortion, patents, tort reform, etc. Hopefully next session, he will tackle patents

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    DV Henkel-Wallace, Jun 22nd, 2006 @ 5:49pm

    
    

    These method patents are very hard to enforce

    In general people won't take out this sort of patent because it's hard to enforce (we come up with similar stuff all the time and don't even want to publish it in since then it's public knowledge). Let's say I learn that drinking a glass of salt water makes my headache tablet be absorbed faster, but it works for asprin and all the other painkillers too (don't try that -- I just made it up). You can't stop 400,000 doctors from telling their patients to do it. OK, only my company could advertise it, but all the other companies would benefit. So I just don't bother to investigate it further.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jun 22nd, 2006 @ 5:57pm

    
    

    In this case Roberts recused himself because his old law firm represented LabCorp.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    Gunjin, Jun 22nd, 2006 @ 6:48pm

    
    

    This particular court?

    May I remind you that, with the exception of a couple of members, this is the same court that has been deciding cases for the last 15 years.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Clair Ching, Jun 22nd, 2006 @ 8:44pm

    
    

    Silly

    I find this a little too silly and impractical. Would this mean that we can't share any facts freely anymore? Or how about research? Geez. Wouldn't this be the death of r&d?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    Thomason, Jun 26th, 2006 @ 7:01am

    
    

    Split

    Congress has shown it is split on reforming the patent statute, and so too, is the Supreme Court split on whether or how to recast the law on patenting methods.
    Is everything becoming a 50/50 proposition - the popular vote for president, the party makeup of the Senate, whether a patent will be upheld in court or not, the numbers of people for and against patenting business methods, whether Anna Nicole will get to keep the love money........

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    discount viagra, Sep 27th, 2006 @ 1:55pm

    
    

    discount viagra

    discount viagra

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment