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...
- Myriad Genetics Finally Gives Up Its Gene Patent Fight... Just As The Patent Office Opens The Doors Up To More Gene Patents
- Supreme Court Smacks Down CAFC Yet Again: But This Time It May Help The Patent Trolls
- Third Time's A Charm: CAFC Finally Says You Can't Just Add 'On The Internet' And Get A Patent
- Good News: US Patent Office Now Rejecting A Lot More Software Patents
- Supreme Court Asked To Make It Clear That APIs Are Not Copyrightable