4 ms·
Reasonable response, especially given the current legislative and judicial situation. USPTO doesn't have the authority to unilaterally cease issuing entire clas
by elehack 15y ago
Reasonable response, especially given the current legislative and judicial situation. USPTO doesn't have the authority to unilaterally cease issuing entire classes of patents when Congress and the courts have, so far, directed otherwise; what they can do, however, is seek to improve patent quality & decrease vague patents. I'm not sure how successful they will be, especially given funding issues, but this stance seems to be about as far as they can go at present. We need change to come from elsewhere, including the law schools (so lawyers get disabused of this notion that software + computer results in a new machine).
- sologoub 15y agoThe response is entirely focused on self-promotion. If the administration was serious about fixing the current problem, they could do a number of things, from taking on a more serious legislative stance (as opposed to touting how great the current law is), to focusing on getting additional judiciary review and funneling support for getting rid of ridiculous patents.
- brlewis 15y agoWhen you say "Congress and the courts" the truth is "only the Federal Circuit Court". The Supreme Court of the United States' best interpretation of patent statute is that software for a general-purpose digital computer is not statutory material for a patent. See http://ourdoings.com/ourdoings-startup/2011-07-28 http://ourdoings.com/ourdoings-startup/2011-07-28 And now that the Fed Circuit in the Bilski case has backed off a bit from their flagrantly wrong In re. Alappat decision and its affirmation in State Street, one could argue that there isn't any court left claiming that software for general-purpose digital computers is patentable.
- elehack 15y agoUntil the SCOTUS decisively overturns Federal Circuit precedent, it counts as "the courts". Yes, it seems that the SCOTUS isn't pleased, and things are looking up, but current national precedent is that software is patentable. I believe this is based on some interpretation of congressional intent, and Congress has not stated that it does not consider software to be patentable but, rather, that in some cases at least it should be. I have seen this line of reasoning used in court decisions I have looked over.
- brlewis 15y agoI'm very interested in any citation related to apparent congressional intent that in some cases software should be patentable. Please share. I'm also interested in arguments for or against the notion that the Federal Circuit overturned themselves in the Bilski case, affirmed by SCOTUS.
- elehack 15y ago> I'm very interested in any citation related to apparent congressional intent that in some cases software should be patentable. Please share. If memory serves, Kennedy's arguments in the SCOTUS decision in the Bilski case are based in part on apparent congressional intent. I don't have concrete citations to actual congressional activity; this impression is seeing it alluded to or asserted in decisions such as In re. Bilski. I'm making the assumption that the justices are not totally fabricating, although they may be misinterpreting.
- brlewis 15y agoI looked through http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf and couldn't find what you're referring to. If you find a more specific citation, please let me know.