by Mike Masnick
Thu, Jan 29th 2009 5:16pm
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. It's a great read (though, frankly, Ars Technica's habit of breaking stories like this up into multiple pages, without a single-page option is annoying) that highlights why there's a decent chance that the Supreme Court would uphold the CAFC's ruling on Bilski if it chose to hear it. Of course, you never know until it happens, and while the current court has been good about limiting the more ridiculous aspects of the patent system over the past few years, we shouldn't be surprised by bad rulings anymore. That said, who knows if the Supreme Court will even hear the case -- or if it will prefer to see how things play out based on the Bilski ruling, and wait for an alternate case to come up before addressing the issue of software patents.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Software Copyright Litigation After Oracle v. Google
- Backpage Kills Adult Ads On The Same Day Supreme Court Backed Its Legal Protections, Due To Grandstanding Senators
- Tanzanian Farmers Face 12 Years In Prison For Selling Seeds As They've Done For Generations
- Aussie Productivity Commission Doubles Down On Fair Use And Serious Copyright & Patent Reform
- Tesla Gave Up Its Patents, But People Are Freaked Out That Faraday Future Put Its Own Into A Separate Company