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...
- Does Patent Licensing by Patent Trolls - Or Anyone - Serve A Useful Purpose?
- Jury Sympathetic To Life360's CEO Sending 'Dear Piece Of Shit' Letter To Patent Troll; Says Patents Not Infringed
- Patent Not Sufficiently Broad Or Generic? Cloem Will Help You By Automatically Generating Dozens Of Nearly Identical Patents
- Stop The Presses: Disney Tells Court About The Importance Of The Public Domain
- Spain About To Bring In Software Patents -- Just As US Starts Moving Away From Them