|
Authored by: PolR on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
It's just that we know that the set of software that is patentable
is the null
set! All we need to do now is get a case to the Supremes where they
recognise
that fact.
Such a ruling would be helpful, but I think
even this isn't needed. It is sufficient to have them require that software must
be analyzed according to a test that always gives the same answer: not
patentable. The Supremes may not know the test always gives the same answer and
say software "may" be patentable, but in practice software is effectively
unpatentable.
According to Gene Quinn and some judges on the Federal
Circuit, The analysis method which has been used by judge Lourie in CLS Bank or
by PTAB judge Tierney in SAP America v. Versata Development work exactly like
this.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- This is an - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 12:15 PM EDT
- This is an - Authored by: PolR on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 01:30 PM EDT
|
|
|
|