4 ms·
> these decisions didn't rest on "well, they're not actually authorized by law" as much as "it's been well-agreed by common sense that these things can't be pat
by monochromatic 8y ago
> these decisions didn't rest on "well, they're not actually authorized by law" as much as "it's been well-agreed by common sense that these things can't be patented."
By their own terms, these decisions purport to be based on the statute section 101. The Supreme Court rarely if ever bases a decision only on what it considers common sense.
If the text of 101 changes, there’s no reason to think the caselaw that’s grown up around it would stay valid.
- jcranmer 8y agoI haven't read the opinion of Alice directly, and it's been a long time since I read Bilski, but my recollection is that both of them turn on "it's long held that some things can't be patented as a matter of nature, and this patent is an example of something that falls into that category." There are things that Congress can't do, and given that SCOTUS is very likely to have an originalist rather than a legislative intent majority, the framework for analysis is very likely to be "what would an 18th century lawyer say about this?" rather than any amount of exhortation about how this is necessary to promote the progress of science and useful arts. I'm not sure about the exact interplay of different kinds of law here, and I'm certainly not an expert in any variant of law. That's why I pointed out that the legislation might not have any actual effect as opposed to saying that the legislation will not have an effect.
- monochromatic 8y agoWell regardless of the statutory interpretation tools employed, they purport to be interpreting section 101, not the constitution. If 101 changes, those cases should be out the window.