by Mike Masnick
Tue, Jul 29th 2008 3:42am
As the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is considering the Bilski case, where it may finally push back on software and business model patents, it's interesting to hear one of CAFC's judges admit that he was "troubled by the unintended consequences" of the lawsuits (State Street and AT&T) that resulted in software and business model patents being effectively allowed. While it's nice to see Judge Plager worried about this now (just as the CAFC may finally change it), it's a bit of a stretch to claim that the consequences were somehow unintended. There was plenty of discussion around the time of the State Street case concerning what the end result would be if these types of patents were allowed. It's just that too many people seem to think that a change that increases patent coverage couldn't possibly have a negative impact -- despite tons of evidence to the contrary. Hopefully the next time an effort is underway to widen or strengthen patent law, people will look at what a disaster the past four years have been and recognize that expanding patentability is not something that should be done lightly.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Yes, The Appeals Court Got Basically Everything Wrong In Deciding API's Are Covered By Copyright
- TPP Will Override Five Years Of Democratic Discussion About Software Patents In New Zealand
- Newegg Asks Appeals Court For Help After Waiting Nearly Two Years For East Texas Judge To Actually Rule In Patent Case
- Supreme Court Won't Hear Oracle v. Google Case, Leaving APIs Copyrightable And Innovation At Risk
- Appeals Court May Have Finally Reversed An Error That Enabled Bogus Software Patent Claims