decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Gene Quinn knows patent law better then us - you might want to reconsider that | 343 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Gene Quinn knows patent law better then us - you might want to reconsider that
Authored by: PolR on Friday, June 21 2013 @ 01:57 PM EDT
Quinn understands the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land.

I think Quinn's statement about the Federal Circuit overriding the Supreme
should not be taken in the sense you have understood. He was refering to the
practical consequences of how the Supreme Court oversees the Federal Circuit.

The Supreme Court has an history of not taking patentable subject matter cases
for decades. For instance Diehr was issued in 1981. The next case on the same
topic was Bilski in 2010. This is a period of almost 30 years where the Supreme
Court just let the Federal Circuit run loose with software patents without
overseeing them. During this period they issued Alappat, AT&T v. Excel and
State Street. The practical effect of these cases was to make an end-run around
the Supreme Court precedents of Benson and Flook while paying lip service to
what the Supremes said. They are the source of the explosion in the number of
software and business methods patents.

So I think Quinn was expecting this pattern to repeat. He was assuming that at
some point in the future the Supreme Court will go asleep again and the Federal
Circuit will issue more precedents making end-runs around the Supreme court
decisions.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )