|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 09:11 AM EST |
But I think I'll give them the benefit of doubt that they made a decision at
a less-educated point of time. Given:
A: their more recent
rulings
B: that they got most of their earlier education from Lawyers
with vested interests
C: that they appear quite open to additional
technical education such they are willing to quote blogs in their rulings
I
still think they're our best option compared to the alternatives:
Congress -
willing to discuss such a thing for decades while Corporate interests make
donations into campaigns - much more likely to be open to word play then the
Supremes methinks
Federal Circuit - sadly appears to be willing to
patent everything given the slightest opportunity to rephrase words so "Law of
Nature" is not actually a "Law of Nature"
Software patent Lawyers -
Gene Quinn quote "How long will it take the Federal Circuit to overrule the
Supremes?". Given his position on software patents is strong enough he's
actually willing to verbalize a belief on the hierarchy of the Law that is the
exact opposite of everything he learned in school (both regular and Legal)...
interesting thought: is it a question on the bar exam and did he get it right at
the time?
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|